Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

Commander BELLAIRS: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether there is considerable need for improvement in the economical administration of the railways in India and in East Africa; whether a transport board will be set up in India on the lines now proposed in the United Kingdom; and whether he will secure close co-ordination with the new Ministry of Transport, if set up, with a view to avoiding departmental competition and badly standardised material?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The Committee of inquiry into the future management of Indian Railways which the Government of India propose to institute will no doubt take account of any legislation dealing with transportation that Parliament may enact, and consider whether similar arrangements would be applicable to Indian conditions. The Secretary of State is in entire agreement with the hon. and gallant Member as to the necessity for avoiding departmental competition. The part of the question relating to railways in East Africa should be addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Commander BELLAIRS: 2.
asked whether there is reason to believe that the low standard of efficiency of Indian railway administration has an important bearing on the famine problem which, on a small scale, is again confronting certain parts of India; and whether he will have the problem of setting up an efficient transport board gone into immediately with the view of assisting private enterprise to the greatest possible extent?

Sir J. D. REES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether he accepts the statement that a low standard of efficiency characterises Indian railway administration which is postulated in the question?

Mr. FISHER: I am about to answer that point in the reply. The Secretary of State is not aware that the standard of efficiency of Indian railway administration is relatively low, or that relief measures in districts which are suffering from crop failure are impeded by the inability of the railways to carry supplies. But with a view to ascertaining what improvements are possible, he has already arranged with the Government of India that a comprehensive inquiry by a Committee or Commission into the whole question of management should be made.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Secretary of State for India that he should inquire by a few test cases, such as the relative weight of the wagons and the goods carried on these railways as compared with the English and American railways?

Mr. FISHER: I shall be glad to bring that to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

Sir J. D. REES: May I suggest another test, and it is whether or not the Indian railways have not practically abolished famine in India?

ARMY (OFFICERS' PENSIONS).

Colonel YATE: 3.
asked whether steps are being taken to consider the question of an increase in the rates of pension of British officers of the Indian Army in conjunction with the consideration that is now being given to an increase in the rates of pension of Regular officers of the British Army?

Mr. FISHER: The answer is in the negative. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the Indian Army pension scale is considerably higher than the present scale for British Army officers.

COTTON PRODUCTION.

Sir J. D. REES: 4.
asked whether a Government Commission, representative of the interests of India and of Lancashire, inquired last year into the production and manufacture of cotton; in that case, who were the members of such Commission;
when their Report may be expected, and whether it will, as soon as received be made available for Members of Parliament?

Mr. FISHER: The Committee was appointed by the Government of India to consider the possibility of increasing the production of long-stapled cotton. It was presided over by Mr. MacKenna, the agricultural adviser to the Government of India. The members were Messrs. Hodgkinson, Wadia, Henderson, Roberts, and Aston. The Secretary of State hopes to receive the Report shortly from India. He will then decide whether it should be laid.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

NAVY RANKS AND RATINGS.

Rear-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: 7.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Admiralty proposals for the improved scale of pay, pension, and allowances for the ranks and ratings of the Royal Navy will be made public?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 12 and 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he is now in a position to state when the Reports of Admiral Jerram's Committee will be circulated; (2) whether the Reports of the Jerram Committee have yet been sent to the Treasury; and can he say when they will be considered by the War Cabinet?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): As I said on Monday, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, the Board got the Jerram Report on Thursday, 27th March. The Committee it at once appointed is now completing its labours, and the Report of that Committee will, I hope, be before the Board within the next few days. The Board's recommendations will immediately be presented to the War Cabinet. Directly that body has taken its decisions, they will be promulgated forthwith. I regret it is manifestly not possible to promise this before the House rises for the Easter Recess. As I have already said, we expect the Report relating to officers from the Jerram Committee shortly.

DISABILITY PENSIONS.

Sir B. FALLE: 23.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if men of the lower deck who may have been wounded and have lost a limb or an eye are eligible for wound or disability pensions, but that such are not paid to the men if they are continued in the Service even if such service is by request of the Admiralty; if these pensions are payable to officers who continue serving; if he can explain this difference; and if he will have it remedied?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The statements contained in the question are correct. The matter is one which engaged the attention of Admiral Jerram's Committee, and will be considered by the Board in connection with the Report of that Committee.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION (OFFICERS' OUTFITS).

Colonel Sir HENRY NORRIS: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that some hundreds of subalterns, married men, who have been serving for practically the whole period of the War, have now been accepted for the Army of Occupation; that large numbers of these officers have no other means beyond their pay, and that in most cases an entirely new outfit, costing at the least £30, will be necessary; and whether he will, in order to meet this expenditure, advise the immediate payment of 50 per cent. of the gratuity so far earned but which would not otherwise be payable until the final termination of the officer's service?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Every subaltern accepted for the Army of Occupation draws 3s. 6d. or 4s. per day extra pay from the 1st February by reason of being accepted. It is not considered desirable to anticipate the payment of the gratuity as suggested.

PRE-WAR INJURIES ON SERVICE.

Lieutenant-Colonel CAMPION: 103.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that ex-soldiers now in receipt of pensions in respect of injuries received on service other than active service and prior to the present War are in no way benefited by the provisions of the Royal Warrants increasing the rates of pension awarded for injury received in former wars; and whether he can see his way to extending the benefits of the Royal Warrants so as to
include ex-soldiers disabled by injuries received on service other than active service at dates prior to 4th August, 1914?

The MINISTER of PENSION'S (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I am aware of the fact stated. The question is under consideration.

SCOTTISH ASSOCIATION OF PENSION COMMITTEES.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 104.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he has received a communication from Scotland intimating the proposal to form a Scottish association of local war pensions committees and inviting the views of the Ministry of Pensions thereon, and whether he is now in a position to give a reply?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I may, however, remind the hon. Member that Section 16 of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1918, only contemplates the formation of one association of local war pensions committees for the United Kingdom. That association has now been formed. Before considering the question of a separate association for Scotland, I propose to await the result of the Conference of Scottish Local Committee representatives on the 15th of this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

WAR GRATUITIES.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 8.
asked when the war gratuities will be paid to the officers and men of the Royal Navy; and whether demobilised officers and men are now entitled to draw their war gratuities?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have prepared a detailed answer, and as it is lengthy, will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the reply referred to:
The war gratuities to officers and men of the permanent Naval Service are not due until the prescribed terminating date of the qualifying war period has been reached. Meanwhile, of course, increments of war gratuity are being earned.
As regards the second part of the question, demobilised officers and men are entitled to their war gratuities on being demobilised, and these gratuities are now being paid.
It may be useful if I say that permanent and retired officers who are discharged from active service prior to the prescribed terminating date of the qualifying war period, and who desire early payment, are required to apply to the Accountant-General, Admiralty. Temporary officers are also required to apply for payment. The necessary forms can be obtained on demobilisation either from the accountant officer of the ship concerned or from the Admiralty. Where application is not made within a reasonable time, the form is issued automatically.
Men demobilised after the Armistice who received a protection and identity certificate on discharge need not apply, as action is taken automatically. Men demobilised or discharged during the War, and any men demobilised after the Armistice who did not receive a protection and identity certificate should apply on the special naval form (A.G. No. 305), to be obtained at all naval and marine recruiting offices, at the offices of all superintendents of Mercantile Marine, at the Admiralty, and other places; or the Army Form W. 5063, to be got at any Post Office.

NAVAL WRITERS.

Mr. HOHLER: 25.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state what steps have been taken to accelerate the demobilisation of naval writers?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. On the 1st April, authority was given for the three home ports to employ members of the Women's Royal Naval Service, released from bases where they can be spared, and also civilians, to facilitate the demobilisation of writers. My hon. and learned Friend will realise that we cannot yet say how far this will speed up releases, as, of course, the writers will have to instruct their substitutes as a first step.

ORDER OF RELEASE.

Mr. RENDALL: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether special effort can be made to give immediate discharge to Private J. Davis, No. 240695, T Section, 1/5th Gloucestershire Regiment, British Expeditionary Force, France, a blacksmith, who joined up in 1914; whether the Gloucestershire Labour Committee have made every effort to get him back as his work is badly needed for agricultural purposes; whether his father has
since died, and a boy of twenty is left to deal with a large shoeing business, over 100 horses being in need of attention as well as agricultural implements; and can he expedite this man's release?

Captain GUEST: If Private Davis's service is as stated he is eligible for release, unless he is serving under pre-war conditions, and his term of Colour service is not completed. He is not registered either as pivotal or for special release, nor is there any trace of any application regarding him having been received by the War Office. I am also informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that this man is not registered by his Department as pivotal or for special release. If my hon. Friend will obtain a statement giving full facts vouched for by himself, a clergyman, justice of the peace, or a doctor, the case will be considered. The statement should include full particulars as to Private Davis's dependants.

Mr. HOPKINS: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for War why it is that Private A. Still, No. 142,556, of the 133rd Labour Company, is not demobilised, although he is forty-three years of age; and is he aware that 80 men out of 150 in this company are over thirty-seven years old and that many younger men have been released from this company?

The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): If Private Still's age is as stated by my hon. Friend he is eligible for demobilisation, and will be demobilised as soon as circumstances permit. With regard to the second part of the question, in making up dispersal drafts a certain order of priority is followed, and each draft includes as far as possible a proportion of men of all classes as laid down in the order of priority. It is unavoidable that some men who are younger or may have had shorter service should also have been demobilised, but it would be unfair, and also inadvisable from the point of view of industrial requirements, to demobilise the whole of the men in one class, to the exclusion of men in other classes.

Mr. INSKIP: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is the judge in cases of this sort as to when circumstances permit?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should like to define that with proper accuracy. I
should not like to say off-hand that this or that authority are the judges. The military officers are, as a rule, the judges, But if my hon. Friend will give me notice I will supply an exact answer.

1/7TH HAMPSHIRE REGIMENT.

Mr. RENDALL: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the 1/7th Hampshire Regiment have been stationed at Crater, Aden, since 5th January, 1918, and have been told that they are likely to be there till October; and when the many men at this station entitled to demobilisation may expect to return home for discharge?

Captain GUEST: The 1/7th Hampshire Regiment have been stationed at Aden since 5th January, 1918. I would refer to the statement I made on the 25th of February regarding troops in India and Eastern stations. The battalions detailed for foreign service are being organised for service abroad as quickly as possible, and if all goes well it should be possible to carry out these reliefs during the course of next autumn. As many men who are eligible for demobilisation will be sent home before the beginning of the hot weather as shipping facilities permit, subject also to the requirements for the minimum garrison.

SIGNAL SERVICE.

Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHS: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a notice has been posted at Calais stating that all 1915 men in the Signal Service will be retained; and whether he will take steps to secure equality for all men enlisted in 1914 and 1915?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of this, but will have inquiries made and inform my hon. Friend of the result as early as possible. The Signal Service being part of the machinery of demobilisation must, of necessity, be kept working until the end. To carry on the service certain essential trades are required, and to a large extent these trades include numbers of older men and men of long service overseas. Although every effort has been made to equalise demobilisation in the Signal Service, it is unavoidable that in some cases men of forty-one or of long service overseas have to be retained because they are of these essential trades.

"GOEBEN" (ESCAPE).

The following questions stood on the Paper in the name of Commander BELLAIRS:

9. (1) To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will now publish the dispatches connected with the escape of the "Goeben" and the finding and proceedings of the court-martial on Admiral Troubridge in 1914 in connection with the escape of the "Goeben"; (2) in the event of the Board refusing to give the House the proceedings and the finding of the court-martial on Admiral Troubridge, whether he can state if the Court in the course of its finding held that the accused was justified in his action in view of the instructions received from the Board of Admiralty?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend has been asked to postpone these two questions.

Commander BELLAIRS: I have been asking this question for four years, and I beg to give notice that I will call attention to it on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Easter holidays.

DRIFTING MINES (NORTH SEA TRAWLERS).

Major ENTWISTLE: 11.
asked whether the rifles and ammunition issued to North Sea trawlers for sinking floating mines have been recalled by the Admiralty; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that floating mines are still frequently seen in the North Sea, he will give instructions for the re-issue of these rifles?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In consequence of the large number of drifting mines present in home waters, instructions were issued some weeks ago to local naval authorities authorising them to supply rifles to suitable applicants for the purpose of destroying these mines.

COASTGUARD FORCE (PENSIONS).

Mr. BECKETT: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, under the re-constitution of the Coastguard as a pensioner force, some injustice has been done to those petty officers who abstained from taking the retrospective pension, in the
expectation held out to them that accelerated promotion would result from their remaining on the active list; and, seeing that those petty officers and men have made their decision prompted by a legitimate hope of rising in the Service, whether steps could be taken to see that they do not suffer by such decision?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am advised that in promulgating the details of the reconstituted Coastguard force, particular emphasis was laid on the fact that promotion for men electing to remain under the old conditions of service (i.e., without pension), would be on a "pro rata" basis as compared with the numbers remaining in the old force. In the reconstituted Coastguard force all men, whether serving under the old conditions or as pensioners, will have an equal chance of rising in the Service. Furthermore, all those men who abstained from taking their pensions have quite recently been given an opportunity of reconsidering their decision and taking their pension with retrospective effect.

Mr. BECKETT: Can my right hon. Friend say when it was that a further opportunity was given to these men?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No, but it was quite recently.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

NAVAL OFFICERS' COURSES (CAMBRIDGE).

Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to continue the series of courses for junior naval officers at Cambridge?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir; it is intended to continue the courses for the present, provided that satisfactory arrangements can be made with the university and college authorities.

BRITISH FLEET (VISIT TO UNITED STATES).

Viscount CURZON: 16.
asked whether it is proposed that any portion of the Fleet should pay an official visit to the United States in the near future?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No such official visit is in contemplation at the present time.

KEYHAM COLLEGE.

Viscount CURZON: 17.
asked if any decision has been arrived at with regard
to Keyham College; and if it is proposed to continue the entry of public school cadets into the Royal Navy?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. It has been decided that Keyham shall revert to its original use as an engineering college in October next. A further examination for the entry of special entry cadets will be held in June next, when fifteen places will be offered. The question of continuing this scheme of entry subsequently is still under consideration, but if it is decided to do so, other arrangements for the cadet accommodation will have to be made.

"GRAND FLEET" DESIGNATION.

Mr. MACMASTER: 18.
asked whether the historical designation the "Grand Fleet" for His Majesty's ships of war will still be retained, and, if not, why not; whether the associations connected with the name of the Grand Fleet are too precious to have it set aside at this time; whether the distribution of the Grand Fleet in sub-divisions under such designations as, for example, the "Atlantic Squadron," the "Channel Squadron," the "Mediterranean Squadron," the "Chinese or Pacific Squadron," are incompatible with the retention of the designation the "Grand Fleet" for His Majesty's Navy as a whole, and whether the designation the "Home Fleet" rather suggests a Fleet in harbour than a Fleet in a state of war preparedness on the high seas?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Grand Fleet has never been used, as my hon. Friend suggests, as a designation for His Majesty's ships of war as a whole. It has been used to designate our main Naval Force when it was concentrated under a single command and in a particular sphere of operations as one organisation; but a large part of the Navy throughout the War has not been included in the Grand Fleet.
It is not considered that respect for the associations connected with the name would be shown by using it with an entirely different signification, and one which, from a naval point of view, would be meaningless.
In the opinion of the Admiralty, the proper designation for the Navy as a whole is His Majesty's Navy, or, in contradistinction to foreign navies, the British Navy, both of which designations have associations that cannot be equalled.
The Admiralty see no reason why the designation "Home Fleet" should be considered to suggest a Fleet in harbour, which is a signification which has never been attached to it. It suggests a Fleet whose normal cruising area is home waters.

LEAVE (DISTANT STATIONS).

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 19.
asked whether men at distant stations who have not been home for two years can be given leave?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am advised that it is regretted that my hon. Friend's suggestion is not practicable, but I can assure him that every effort is being made to relieve men from foreign service who have been abroad for long periods.

NEUTRAL SHIPS.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the number of neutral ships, together with their nationalities, arrested or seized during the War for carrying contraband of war, laying mines, or supplying hostile submarines or raiders with munitions of war and/or stores?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available and could only be produced, if at all, in the detail indicated, after some weeks of research work involving both labour and expense. I hope, in the circumstances, my hon. Friend will not press his question.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the pending negotiations for a Peace Treaty, it might be desirable to let the country know who our real friends have been in the War?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will put that point before the proper authorities.

CLYDE SHIPBUILDING (SUSPENSION OF WORK).

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 21.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received any resolutions regarding the action of the Admiralty in suspending work on vessels in course of construction on the Clyde; and whether, in view of the advisability of stabilising employment as far as possible during the present transition period, the Admiralty will reconsider their policy in this matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Resolutions such as those referred to by my hon. Friend have been received. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by me on Monday last to the Member for the Silvertown Division, in which I explained that after very careful consideration of all the circumstances it had been decided to cancel certain ships under construction, and that the shipbuilders concerned had been notified and requested to stop all work on these ships at the earliest possible date, avoiding, as. far as possible, any sudden dislocation of labour.

ROYAL DOCKYARD MEN.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 22.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will consider the possibility of establishing those dockyard men who volunteered for Zanzibar, the Mediterranean, or other foreign stations, during the period covered by the War, as was done in the case of dockyard men volunteering for Rosyth?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In the case of the men who volunteered for permanent transfer to Rosyth, eventual establishment was laid down as one of the conditions under which men were invited to volunteer. In the case of men volunteering for service at Zanzibar, the Mediterranean and other foreign stations there was no permanent transfer and establishment was not one of the conditions offered to men volunteering. I am afraid we cannot undertake to meet my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Sir B. FALLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not even consider the matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The point is that we did begin to provide men to go to Rosyth on the firm understanding that they got establishment. Now my hon. Friend asks us to extend that to these cases, and I am afraid we cannot do it.

Sir B. FALLE: May I point out that the men who go to Rosyth go for one year, whereas those who went to Zanzibar went for four years?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The men invited to go to Rosyth were given an assurance of establishment after a certain period when they are permanent.

TEES (SUBMARINE BASE).

Sir JOSEPH WALTON: 24.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the
submarine base on the Tees is to be abandoned; if so, on what grounds and under whose advice; will he state the total expenditure on the same up to date; and how much of it has been on works of a permanent character?

Dr. MACNAMARA: the question of the retention or otherwise of this submarine base is still under consideration. The decision must await the result of the Peace Conference. The expenditure to date has been £180,000 upon quarters intended for officers and crews, dredging, and temporary landing places. As regards the quarters, which have been completed, they are of a semi-permanent nature adaptable for storehouses or other purposes if not used for the original purpose intended.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.

HUCKNALL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

Mr. SPENCER: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether Matthew Hardy, George Knight, George Wheeldon, and Mark Williamson, each having six children, and Frederick Barkly, having three children, and Samuel Arche, single, have had their out-of-work donation stopped for refusing to accept work, offered by the Hucknall Urban District Council, Notts, at rates less than the recognised trade union rates; whether Mr. Parker Woodward, chairman of the Court of Referees, is also clerk to the said council; whether he will take steps to secure that a person shall not adjudicate upon cases he is interested in; if he will say whether it is a condition of the out-of-work donation that persons should accept work irrespective of the standard rate of wages offered; and whether he will institute inquiries and, if satisfactory, advise the payment of the donation?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Robert Horne): The workmen in question were general labourers, who were offered labouring work under the Hucknall Urban District Council. I am informed that the rate of wages for the work was the recognised standard rate for the Hucknall district, and that this was confirmed by the workmen's representative on the Court of Referees which dealt with the cases, who is the secretary of the Nottingham and District Builders Labourers' Union. I am, however, having further inquiry made into this point. Owing to the illness of the regular chairman of the local Court of
Referees his place was taken on this occasion by one of his deputies, Mr. Parker Woodward, who is clerk to the district council. I am satisfied that the impartial hearing of the cases was in no way prejudiced by this fact, and I may add that in each of the cases the three members of the Court were unanimous in their decision.

NUMBER OF RECIPIENTS.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the number for the latest available week of men, women, boys, and girls drawing unemployment donation; and what is the amount they are receiving?

Sir R. HORNE: The number of men, boys, women, and girls who drew unemployment donation during the week ended 28th March, 1919, are:




Civilians.
H.M. Forces.
Total.


Men
…
209,486
305,251
514,737


Boys
…
26,461
—
26,461


Women
…
488,655
1,012
489,667


Girls
…
29,380
—
29,380





Grand total
1,060,245


During the week the amount of donation paid was approximately £1,250,000.

Lieutenant - Colonel Sir S. HOARE: Would it not be better to expedite public works and find work for these people rather than pay this enormous sum in unemployment donation?

Sir R. HORNE: I entirely agree with the suggestion of my hon. Friend that it would be better to expedite work, and this is being done.

Captain R. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a large number of laundries in this country which are unable to get women workers to-day?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that there are a number of laundries which have not workwomen to-day, but difficulties arise in connection with the wages that are asked.

Mr. MACMASTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many instances these unemployment donations have become incentives to idleness and to preying upon the public purse?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid it is true that there is a certain amount of abuse of
the unemployment donation, and I should be glad if hon. Members would furnish me with particulars of any cases that come to their notice.

Mr. MARRIOTT: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons who have since 21st November drawn the out-of-work donation, the total amount paid cut in donations, the number of applications received up to date for an extension or renewal of policies, and the number of applications granted; if in a large number of cases the unemployment donation has been improperly applied for and carelessly granted; and if he can form any estimate of the number of cases in which it has been so granted?

Sir R. HORNE: The number of individuals who have at any time drawn donation cannot be precisely stated. The number of persons actually in receipt of unemployment donation on the 21st March was 738,000 civilians and 265,000 ex-members of His Majesty's Forces. The amount paid out in donation up to the 21st March was about £10,000,000 for civilians and £2,000,000 for ex-members of His Majesty's Forces. On the 26th March 45,319 applications for renewal of policies had been received. Of this number 24,360 had been granted and 7,906 rejected; 13,053 were still under consideration. As to the last part of the question, I am aware that there are many complaints that unemployment donation is improperly obtained. I have no statistics on the subject, but I shall welcome the opportunity of making inquiries into any specific cases which may come to the notice of hon. Members, if they will give me the facts.

Sir F. BANBURY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that I did give him a specific case about a fortnight ago, and is he aware that I have had no answer?

Sir R. HORNE: The case given me by the right hon. Baronet is being gone into.

Lieutenant-Commander F. ASTBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Lancashire men are refusing to work after Wednesday night in order that they may receive the three days' out-of-work donation, and that with the out-of-work donation their total wages come to 57s. 6d. per week with 3s. for the first child and 1s. 6d. for other children?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not aware of the facts as stated by the hon. Member.
There is, I know, very great depression in the cotton trade in Lancashire, which is caused directly by the policy of the country, and, if the hon. Member will give me the facts to which he refers, I will inquire into them.

Lieutenant-Commander ASTBURY: I will send them to the right hon. Gentleman.

COURTS OF REFEREES.

Colonel THORNE: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the practice of the Courts of Referees to disallow donation benefit to young women who decline to undertake night work, although the Factory Acts specially provide that young persons should not be called upon to undertake night work; and if he will take action in the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: So far as I am aware, it is not the practice of Courts of Referees to disallow donation benefit in the circumstances mentioned in the hon. and gallant Member's question. If he will give me particulars of any such cases of refusal as have come to his knowledge, I will make inquiries and let him know the result.

WARRINGTON LABOUR EXCHANGE.

Colonel THORNE: 31 and 32.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) if the Labour Exchange officer at Warrington disallowed donation benefit to a young lady who was a Sunday-school teacher because she refused to undertake employment as a barmaid at the Lion Hotel, Warrington; if members of the Warrington Advisory Board and Court of Referees have entered an emphatic protest at donation benefit being refused to workpeople for trivial and insufficient reasons; and if he will make inquiries into the matter; and (2) if a discharged soldier suffering from gunshot wound in the leg, deafness, and other physical disabilities was asked by the official at the Warrington Labour Exchange on the 18th February to take on the sale of picture postcards at the local cinema for 3s. a night and 1s. in the £ commission on sales; that he refused this employment in consequence of having other temporary work and because the remuneration offered would not provide a living for his wife and three children; that subsequently his donation benefit was stopped by the Court of Referees; and if he will make inquiries into the matter with a view to restoration of the benefit?

Sir R. HORNE: I will cause inquiries to be made into these cases. The result will be communicated to the hon. and gallant Member in due course.

DOMESTIC SERVANTS.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 33 and 34.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of applications registered at the Employment Exchanges in Brighton for domestic servants; (2) the number of women on the books at Brighton who have been in service as domestic servants and who are now in receipt of unemployment pay?

Sir R. HORNE: I will answer the questions together. The number of women, registered for domestic services at Brighton who drew unemployment pay for the week ending 4th April was 480, and the number of applications for domestic servants at the same date was 380. I am making inquiry as to the facts underlying these figures, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member. Meanwhile I may say that the category of domestic service includes hotel and institution servants, day girls, caretakers, charwomen, cleaners, etc., as well as domestic indoor servants. The numbers of registrations and applications in the last-mentioned class were 54 and 23, respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR (APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT).

Major BARKER: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour how many officers have been placed by his officials in appointments with firms in which they were not engaged before the War; and how many officers are still registered with the Appointments Department and have not been found any work?

Sir R. HORNE: Two thousand three hundred and twenty-four discharged and demobilised officers and men of similar qualifications are known to have been placed by the Appointments Department with firms with whom they were not engaged prior to joining His Majesty's Forces. A number of officers, however, fail to notify the Department when placed. There are now 9,128 officers and men of similar qualifications registered with the Appointments Department who are immediately available for engagement by employers.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCANDINAVIA (PASSPORTS FOR BRITISH TRADERS).

Sir J. D. REES: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reasons for the delays in issuing passports for Scandinavia to British trade representatives; and if he will say whether foreign trade rivals are subject to the same restrictions and delays?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Applications for passports received from trade representatives, especially when supported by the Department of Overseas Trade or Chambers of Commerce, are given special priority, and the passports are issued without delay.
It is necessary for all travellers to obtain the visas of the foreign consuls concerned, and this may occasion some delay. This requirement, however, applies to travellers of all nationalities.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA (GENERAL SITUATION).

Major O'NEILL: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has recently been a revolution or coup d'état in Abyssinia, and if he can make a statement as to the condition of affairs in that country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have received no confirmation of the reports regarding a revolution in Northern Abyssinia which appeared recently in the Press and to which the hon. and gallant Member doubtless refers. I have, however, telegraphed an inquiry on the subject to His Majesty's representative.
The general situation in Abyssinia has not materially changed since the present regime came into force in 1916. A certain amount of unrest in the more distant provinces is always present and the political condition of the country contains elements of instability owing to the limited control exercised by the Central Government in outlying parts of the country.

Major ORMSBY-GORE: Is the dethroned ruler alive or not?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no reason to question that he is. But perhaps the hon. Member will give notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

SITUATION IN CAIRO.

Mr. G. TERRELL: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the position in Egypt; and whether, in view of public anxiety, he can arrange for a daily Report to be issued?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made yesterday in the House.
A telegram from General Allenby received at the Foreign Office confirms the report which has appeared in the Press that a riot took place on the 3rd April in Abdin Square, Cairo. In the course of this disturbance one British civilian official, whose name was not given by General Allenby, was killed. There were some casualties among the demonstrators and the rioters were dispersed by troops.
Subsequent telegrams from Cairo report that no further disturbances have occurred there or in the provinces, and on three successive days the information has been received that the situation is quiet.
Arrangements are being made for issuing periodically to the Press official statements as to the situation.

Mr. TERRELL: Will my hon. Friend publish the names of the civilians and military who have been killed in these disturbances?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, Sir. I have been very reluctant to make any official statement with regard to that, because our information has not always been clear or accurate enough. But when we know the facts definitely I shall publish them. But it is inadvisable to do that until we are quite certain of the names of the officers.

Mr. TERRELL: Will it be done without waiting for questions to be put on the floor of the House?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am making arrangements for regular or periodical statements to be made.

ENEMY ALIENS (IMMIGRATION PROHIBITIONS).

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether he is now in a position to state what are the enactments or other legislative or administrative measures passed by the governments of Allied countries since the War commenced, prohibiting and/or regulating the immigration of subjects of enemy countries; and when he expects to be in a position to give such information to the House?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have assumed that the hon. Member desires to obtain information as to the legislation, if any, passed in Allied countries to regulate the immigration of subjects of enemy countries after the War, and I have sent out a circular asking for such information. There will necessarily be some delay before the answers come in from the different parts of the world concerned and I cannot name any date on which I shall be able to convey it to the hon. Member, but there will be no avoidable delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE.

IMPORTS OF BRITISH MANUFACTURES.

Captain BOWYER: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that certain British manufacturers have large numbers of orders in hand for the supply of British goods to French customers; whether he is aware that great difficulty is now experienced in obtaining permits in France for the import of British manufactured goods into that country; whether certain British manufacturers have expended large sums in the extension of their industry with a view to meeting the requirements of the French market, and if appropriate measures will be taken by His Majesty's Government to facilitate the export of British manufactured goods to France?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): Negotiations are now proceeding with the French Government with regard to the application of the French import restrictions to British goods.

WEST AFRICAN CIVIL SERVICE.

Mr. HURD: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether sympathetic consideration is being given
to the case of members of the West African Civil Service who, after enduring a pestilential climate, manage to reach a pensionable age and now find their pensions inadequate to cover the greatly increased cost of living and other charges; and whether he will follow the practice affecting other workers in healthy as well as unhealthy vocations, and secure for them a bonus or other augmentation of pension?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): West African pensions are calculated on a specially liberal basis, and there is therefore no special reason for treating pensioners from the West African Colonies more favourably than those from other Colonies. But the Secretary of State is well aware of the difficulties in which pensioners, in common with all other possessors of fixed incomes of moderate amounts, have been involved owing to the recent rise in prices. He has been in consultation with the Governments of the Colonies generally on all the various questions arising out of these circumstances.

Mr. HURD: What has been the result of these inquiries so far?

Lieutenant - Colonel AMERY: There have been considerable increases of war bonuses.

Mr. HURD: Does that apply to the West African Colonies?

Lieutenant-Colonel AMERY: Yes; considerable war bonuses have been given there.

GOVERNMENT SURPLUS PROPERTY DISPOSAL BOARD.

Mr. ATKEY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state the approximate value of property to be released by the Government Surplus Property Disposal Board; the constitution of that Board; the commercial status and experience of its various members; whether they are in receipt of salaries; if so, will he give details thereof; and whether, in view of the immense sum at stake, he will consider the desirability of inviting the voluntary co-operation of additional independent commercial men in order that the Government may be assured of realising the greatest possible amount in disposing of its property?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The answer to this is of such length that I ask permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer referred to:

The Disposal Board only disposes of Government property when it has been declared by other Government Departments to be surplus to their requirements. Whilst a considerable amount of material has already been passed to the Board for disposal, this represents only a proportion of what will ultimately become surplus. It is, therefore, impossible at present to give even an approximate estimate of the property which the Board will have for disposal. The members of the Board, with their commercial status and experience, are:

Chairman—Mr. F. G. Kellaway, M.P., Deputy-Minister of Munitions.

Deputy-Chairman—Sir Howard Frank, K.C.B., head of the firm of Messrs. Knight, Frank and Rutley, auctioneers and estate agents, and director of Levitt, Frank and Son, and of the Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society, Fellow of Surveyors' Institution.

Mr. David Currie, partner in the firm of Lake and Currie, Limited, mining engineers; director and consulting engineer to Briseis Tin and General Mining Company.

Sir Robert Connell, K.B.E., senior partner in Lowden, Connell and Company, shipowners, Liverpool.

Major - General Sir A. R. Crofton Atkins, K.C.B., C.M.G., late Director of Supplies and Transport at the War Office.

Mr. Alexander Walker, head of the firm of John Walker and Sons, distillers, Kilmarnock.

Sir Sydney H. Henn, K.B.E., director of Messrs. Forster and Sons, Limited, and of the Horseley Bridge and Engineering Company, Limited.

Mr. D. Neylan, C.B.E., late Director of Finance at the War Office.

At present the only members of the Board receiving a salary from the Ministry of Munitions are the chairman, who receives his salary as Deputy-Minister and Parliamentary Secretary; General Crofton Atkins and Mr. D. Neylan. In the case of the last two members, the salaries
at present being paid are £1,500 and £1,200 respectively, the salaries they were receiving from the War Office, from which Department they have been transferred.

A decision has not yet been taken as to whether any other members of the Board shall be paid. As soon as a decision is taken I will communicate the information to my hon. Friend. As to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, the work of the selling departments is dealt with by eighteen controllers, each of whom has the assistance of an advisory committee of independent commercial men experienced in dealing with the class of material coming under their direction.

Details of the organisation were given in the Press on the 10th February last. But, in view of changes and additions which have since been made, I shall be glad to circulate with the Daily Report the latest information, if my hon. Friend desires.

SPIRITS (CLEARANCES).

Lieutenant-Colonel ASSHETON POWNALL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, instead of the licensed trade being allowed to pay duty on 75 per cent. of their 1916 clearances of spirits, i.e., at the rate of 37½ per cent. for the six months ending 30th September, 1919, the clearances are only issued for a month at a time at the rate of 6¼ per cent. per month on the 1916 figure; and, further, whether he is aware that, the percentage being so small, many of the smaller retailers are not able to clear any spirits at all, thus causing great dissatisfaction amongst their customers who were promised larger supplies from 1st April onwards?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Clearances of spirits from bond on payment of duty are allowed to any person at a rate not exceeding 75 per cent. of his clearances in 1916, but under the provisions of Section 15 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have been authorised to refuse for the present to allow deliveries in advance, except as regards the month of April, the proportion for which (i.e., one-sixth of the six months' supply) may be cleared at any time during the month as may be desired. As regards the second part of the question I am advised that the smaller retailers usually obtain their supplies of spirits not
direct from bond but from dealers, who should be in a position to deliver to them (provided advance deliveries are not demanded beyond the month of April) the proportion of 75 per cent. of the quantities supplied in 1916. If any small retailers who hold authorities for drawing supplies from their own stocks in bond experience difficulty in clearing the proportion due to them, the Commissioners will endeavour to facilitate deliveries as far as possible on application being made to them.

Colonel THORNE: Is the reason for that answer that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates putting a little more on whisky?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I make no anticipation. It is not a usual step at this time of year.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 94.
asked the Food Controller whether he is aware that the urban district council of Newton-in-Makerfield has passed the following resolution, calling attention to the increasing amount of sickness in the district and the country generally, and urging the Government to release a greater quantity of spirituous liquors, especially whisky, with centres established in every town, apart from public-houses, where all classes of the community, especially poor people, can purchase the same in small quantities at a cheaper rate, at a maximum price not exceeding 2s. per imperial half-pint, and allowing a purchase only to be made on the production of a medical certificate, but at any tune between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. on week-days; and whether he will take steps to give effect to all or any part of the resolution?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): The Food Controller has no knowledge of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. The War Cabinet have recently sanctioned an increase in the release of spirits from bond and it is considered that the present supplies should be sufficient to meet the reasonable requirements of the public. It is not possible for the Food Controller to undertake the establishment of centres for the sale of spirits in the manner suggested, and he regrets that any reduction in the price of spirits is impossible for the present.

Colonel THORNE: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon?

SPITZBERGEN.

Major O'NEILL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the islands of Spitzbergen now form a part of the British Empire; if so, to whom they previously owed allegiance; and under what system of government they are now being administered?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Spizbergen is a No Man's Land, and therefore has no regular system of government.

Major O'NEILL: Is it a fact there are valuable coal deposits there? Is any effort being made to develop them?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes; I understand there are coal deposits on the island, and various companies are making efforts to develop them.

DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (ORGANISATION).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state a date on which he will make his promised statement concerning the Government's organisation of discharged soldiers which is to be created, and which is to amalgamate most of the existing organisations of discharged soldiers?

Captain GUEST: The constitution of an organisation on which would devolve the disposal of canteen funds under the directions of the Army Council is receiving urgent consideration, and a statement will be made at the earliest possible moment.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Captain LOSEBY: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the interest of discharged disabled sailors and soldiers, he will consider the desirability of decentralising some portions of the work of the Ministry of Pensions with a view to avoiding the delays which are now occurring?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have been asked to answer this question. I have decided with the sanction of the War Cabinet to decentralise a large portion of the administrative work of the Ministry of Pensions. Thirteen Regional Headquarters will be set up in the United Kingdom, to which will be entrusted the
administration of awards, medical services and curative training. Appeal Tribunals will be attached to those regions. This will facilitate the work of the local war pensions committees who will thus be enabled to consult with the Regional Headquarters, and to refer to the Regional Director any administrative matters requiring decision. The Regional Director will be advised by a Regional Council upon which the local war pensions committees in his region will be represented. I hope that the administration of pensions will thus be improved and expedited.

AIRCRAFT INSURANCE.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the proposal to apply a portion of the large sum in the hands of the Treasury in respect of premiums upon aircraft insurance policies which were unexpired at the date of the Armistice to the relief of cases of special hardship amongst sufferers from enemy air raids?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt the proposal suggested in the question.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is it not a fact that the Government have in hand upwards of £10,000,000 accumulated profits on this? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to keep them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; it is proposed to keep whatever balance there is.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Hard-hearted Chancellor!

COAL COMMISSION (EVIDENCE).

Brlgadier - General COCKERILL: 57.
asked the Prime Minister if he can state when the full Report of the evidence taken before the Coal Commission will be printed and published?

Sir R. HORNE: The evidence taken prior to the interim Reports, together with the Appendices, is being prepared for publication and will be issued as soon as possible.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Will it be issued by Easter?

Sir R. HORNE: I am sorry I cannot answer that question. It will be as soon as possible.

SOLDIERS' LEAVE.

Colonel THORNE: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for War if a number of soldiers are being refused leave to which they are entitled to, especially those who are entitled to demobilisation, because they will not sign a form handed to them by their respective commanding officers with a view of extending their services for an extra three months; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of this, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any specific case in mind and will furnish particulars I shall be happy to cause inquiries to be made.

TERRITORIAL OFFICERS.

Lieutenant - Colonel ASSHETON POWNALL: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of his speech to Territorial Force representatives on 4th April, will he state how many Territorial officers have commanded divisions with the rank of major-general during the War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Two Territorial officers commanded divisions at home with the rank of major-general. No Territorial officer has commanded a division in the field.

ROYAL ENGINEERS, JAMAICA.

Mr. HOHLER: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men of the Royal Engineers were sent to Jamaica in 1912 and have ever since been retained there without leave; that some of these men are time-expired men; and will he at once arrange for their relief?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that a draft to relieve all the Royal Engineer personnel at Jamaica is already awaiting embarkation.

Oral Answers to Questions — KUT-EL-AMARA.

DISPATCHES AND MILITARY AWARDS.

Colonel YATE: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for War if there is now any reason why the dispatches relating to the defence of Kut-el-Amara should not be published; how many of the military rewards or mentions published in the
"London Gazette" were awarded for services in the defence of Kut, and why all mention of that defence has been omitted from any lists of military awards?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The dispatches relating to the defence of Kut-el-Amara have been published, as was stated in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 2nd April.
If my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind wireless reports received from General Townshend during the siege, describing a portion of the operations of the garrison, I would refer him to a reply given to the Noble and gallant Member for Nottingham (South), on the 24th July last to the effect that as these reports were from a subordinate commander, and the operations were dealt with in Sir John Nixon's dispatch, gazetted 10th May, 1916, it was decided that they should not be published. It is not intended to alter that decision.
As regards the second part of the question, I am informed that of the 148 specific awards mentioned in my answer of 2nd April, eighty-five definitely appear, according to the records, to have been conferred for services rendered during the siege. In the case of the other sixty-three awards it is not known to what extent services during the siege were included.
The "London Gazette" of the 28th March, 1916, also contained sixteen names of officers rewarded for services during the siege of Kut, and these rewards are additional to those above referred to. As regards "mentions," no figures are available. With regard to the last part of the question, it is customary when gazetting rewards and "mentions" for services in the field, to specify the theatre of operations only without indicating the actual place or action in respect of which the awards were conferred.

IMPRISONED SOLDIERS (RELEASE).

Major O'NEILL: 72.
asked the Secretary fo State for War whether any, and, if so, what, decision has been reached with regard to the discharge or release of soldiers who, for offences under the Army Act, are serving terms of penal servitude and imprisonment for less than two years?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Unless their sentences are commuted to detention under
the provisions of paragraph 583 (iv.) and (v.) of the King's Regulations such soldiers will be discharged from the Army in consequence of their conviction and released from prison on the termination of their sentences.

Major O'NEILL: 73.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his decision that all soldiers who have been sentenced to imprisonment for offences under the Army Act will be discharged for misconduct applies to those who have committed civil offences as well as to those who have committed purely military offences?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The discharge of soldiers for misconduct is consequential upon their being committed to a prison in this country to undergo their sentence. In all cases, therefore, where the sentence is not commuted to detention under the provisions of paragraph 583 (iv.) and (v.) of the King's Regulations, discharge from the Army will be carried out.

Major O'NEILL: Is it the intention of the Army Council to make no difference between a soldier who has been convicted for some civil offence, such as rape or stealing, and a man convicted of a purely military offence, such as using insubordinate language to his superior officer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The peace-time practice is that for all military offences, not involving what one might call moral turpitude from a civilian point of view, soldiers are not imprisoned, but sent to detention barracks. Therefore, they go back to the Army after serving their period of detention. Anybody who in peace-time is sentenced to imprisonment does not go back to the Army. He is turned out of the Army because of the taint of the atmosphere of the gaol. In war-time it was thought that a man should not escape from duty in the firing line by merely taking refuge, as it were, in prison, so that has been suspended. But now that fighting has stopped we have reverted to the practice of peace-time.

SOUTH AFRICA (SURPLUS TRANSPORT STOCK).

Major E. A. KNIGHT: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at recent sales of surplus Government stock in South Africa hundreds of motor-cycle tyres, 26 ins. by 2½ ins., by
2¼ins., were sold at far below cost, while at the same time tenders were being invited for exactly similar stores; that new B.S.A. motor cycles are being sold at £25 to £42 each, these machines having cost the Government about £75 each; that new Dunlop, Spencer, Moulton, and other tyres, 875 millimetres by 105 millimetres, are being sold at less than £3 each, about half the wholesale English price; that at a recent sale two Prince Henry type Vauxhall cars, new, and in perfect condition, were sold for £105 each, and whether he will state the names of the auctioneers and the names of the War Office officials who are responsible for these sales?

Sir HENRY DALZIEL: 110.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that the military authorities in South Africa are selling by auction large quantities of unused pneumatic motor-car tyres, thereby flooding the local markets to the injury of British rubber tyre manufacturers who have large trade interests in the Union of South Africa; if he will explain why in these circumstances the Ministry of Munitions at home continue to requisition for military purposes large purchases of tyres of precisely similar types and sizes to those which are being sold by auction in South Africa, at a time when British manufacturers are in urgent need of replenishing their stocks to enable them to recover their foreign and colonial trade, which they were compelled to neglect during the War owing to the necessity of meeting the demands of the Mechanical Transport Department, and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

Captain GUEST: I have no particulars at present of the sales of surplus stock in South Africa, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have specific details as to where and when the sales to which he refers took place, I will have inquiries made.

VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENT HOSPITALS.

Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of beds in Voluntary Aid Detachment Hospitals provided by private individuals or private subscription for officers and men during the War; and whether he can give any estimate of the amount saved the
public by the provision of rent-free houses and partial upkeep of these hospitals by private effort?

Captain GUEST: Including those provided in hospitals assisted by the Red Cross and those provided by private individuals independently, the total number of beds was well over 80,000. I have no means of estimating what additional cost, beyond the grants made from Army funds to these hospitals, would have fallen upon the public if these beds had not been so provided, but the amount would have been large. The assistance rendered is very fully appreciated.

SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 95.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received any representations supposed to be jointly put forward by the headmasters' conference and the Incorporated Association of Headmasters in favour, amongst other things, of making grants to schools which do not provide the requisite percentage of free places; whether he is aware that these proposals have not been endorsed by the Incorporated Association of Headmasters; and whether he will very seriously consider the matter before accepting the proposal in question?

Mr. FISHER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, and shall not act precipitately.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH TROOPS.

Mr. RAPER: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the desirability in dealing with the Bolshevist menace against our troops in Archangel and Murmansk districts of supplementing our Air Force there by, say, a dozen of the squadrons which are at present virtually unemployed in this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Member wants a detailed answer I must ask him to postpone the question. In general terms the answer is that the question of aerial support for the operations going on is receiving the fullest possible consideration and advice of the General Staff both of the War Office and the Air Ministry, but it might be possible for me to expand that answer a little if the question is put down again.

Mr. RAPER: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for War what proportion of the original British force sent to the Murmansk was composed of category B men, unfit for front-line service; and if these men have had to endure the rigours of a campaign which, in many respects, has caused greater hardships than the campaigns elsewhere?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret this information is not available, but I may say that no man has been sent to North Russia who has not been passed medically fit for duty in North-West Europe.

BOLSHEVIK GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION).

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the telegrams from Paris appearing in the American and the English papers, reiterating that certain American financiers have delivered to certain representatives at the Peace Conference written overtures for recognition from the leaders of the Bolshevik regime in Russia, signed by Lenin, setting forth the terms he would be disposed to accept if they were put forward by the Allies; whether these terms have been laid before President Wilson and the principal plenipotentiaries from this country; whether it is a fact that the proposals have favourably impressed some of the said representatives; whether he is aware that the statements have caused profound consternation among those in this country who believe that any recognition of the Lenin regime would give open encouragement to Bolshevism, with all its appalling consequences to the civilised countries of the world; and whether he can give an assurance that the British representatives will under no circumstances extend any recognition to the Bolshevik regime in Russia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret that I can add nothing to my replies on this subject given to the hon. and gallant Members for Chelsea and Dulwich respectively on the 2nd and 3rd of April, and to the statement made by the Leader of the House in the course of Debate on the 2nd of April.

Mr. EDWARDS: In view of the unsatisfactory character of the reply, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: On what grounds?

Mr. EDWARDS: To draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance,—namely, the alleged overtures from the Bolshevik regime in Russia to the Peace Conference in Paris.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. C. Edwards) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the alleged overtures from the Bolshevik regime in Russia to the Peace Conference in Paris—

Colonel THORNE: May I ask whether we can get an assurance from any of the Government Ministers?

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Mr. SPEAKER: Has the hon. Member for East Ham South the leave of the House?

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not necessary for hon. Members to rise.

HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not necessary, either, for hon. Members to say "Aye!" Hon. Members will rise if there are any shouts of "No!"
The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter past Eight o'clock this evening.

ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS.

Mr. CROOKS: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the distinctions in status between the Regular officers of the executive branch of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps commissioned from the ranks, on the one hand, and of the Regular administrative officers and temporary officers of that corps, on the other hand; whether he will state the reasons for such distinctions in view of the fact that, in all emergencies and practically throughout the campaign, important administrative work has necessarily been performed by the former class; whether he is aware that while the promotion of administrative and temporary officers has been comparatively rapid that of Regular executive officers has been even
slower than under normal peace conditions, while they have frequently had to train temporary officers in their duties and then relinquish administrative positions and acting or temporary rank in favour of the latter; whether he will furnish a statement of the average period of promotion in the classes referred to throughout the campaign; and whether, in view of the present expedient of granting the rank of major to an executive officer after thirteen years of commissioned service, he will state what percentage of executive officers have thus attained tills rank?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to this question is somewhat lengthy, and I propose, with my right hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the Answer referred to:

As regards the general question of the status of these officers, I would refer my right hon. Friend to the very full answer given to a similar question asked by my Noble and gallant Friend the Member for Aldershot on the 18th February. It was there explained that the executive officers, who are normally commissioned from among the warrant officers of the corps, are designed to superintend or carry out the executive work of the corps, under the orders of the specially selected and technically trained combatant officers who constitute the administrative or directing staff. Officers well qualified for executive duties have not necessarily the qualifications for administrative employment of an important character. It is, however, under consideration as a tentative measure, in the future constitution of the Corps, to extend to certain carefully selected executive officers the same facilities for acquiring technical and administrative training as are enjoyed by entrants from elsewhere. In the answer referred to, it was also explained that the "temporary" officers appointed during the War were selected from men whose previous business or professional training gave promise of their being able, after preliminary training, materially to assist in the administrative work of the Corps.

I regret that the figures my right hon. Friend asks for in the latter part of his question are not readily available, but I may say that as regards substantive promotion, both administrative and executive Regular officers, though serving under quite different conditions, have through-
out the War been treated alike in that such promotion has been limited to the filling of vacancies in the peace establishments of each class. All executive officers who complete the qualifying period of thirteen years commissioned service are, if recommended, granted the rank of major.

TEMPORARY PAY (OFFICERS).

Mr. CROOKS: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the great disparity of pay of Regular executive and of temporary officers arising out of the grant to the latter of corps pay and of a recent increase of regimental pay; whether he is aware that this has resulted in such anomalies as junior and more highly-paid officers of the latter class working under a senior officer of the former, or an executive captain of five or more years' standing receiving less pay than a temporary lieutenant of three months' service; and whether, in view of the feelings which exist on these points among a body of officers who have through a long period done important and responsible work, he will make inquiries into this matter and remove the anomalies which exist?

Captain GUEST: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given on Monday last to a question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southampton, of which I am sending him a copy.

GERMAN TROOPS (RETURN FROM CONSTANTINOPLE).

Mr. ALFRED SHORT: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the steamer "Ascard" arrived recently at Wilhelmshafen from Constantinople with 104 German officers, 1,918 German soldiers, and 42 officials; whether the demobilisation of British troops in the Far East is being delayed in consequence; and, if so, will he see that the limited shipping facilities are reserved for British and Allied forces?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINSTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): The arrangements for the conveyance of these German subjects from the Black Sea area were made on grounds of urgent military necessity by the Allied High Commissioners at Constantinople.
They involved no interference whatever with the demobilisation of British troops in the Far East.

Mr. SHORT: Why is it necessary to give a preference to German soldiers over the British Tommy and the British officer?

Colonel WILSON: I have already said said the movement of these ships involved no interference with the demobilisation of troops and it is necessary in view of the representations made by the Military Commissioners at Constantinople to bring these particular troops back to Germany.

TETANUS (BRITISH TROOPS).

Mr. FREDERICK GREEN: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can give the number of cases of tetanus among British troops in this country and abroad during the first year of war and during each succeeding year while the War lasted, and the fatalities therefrom during those periods?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not able to give the figures at present, but I hope to be in a position to reply next week if my hon. Friend will repeat his question.

OFFICERS' EQUIPMENT.

Colonel YATE: 82.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if there is any reason why the practice of permitting officers to obtain articles of equipment at cost price from ordnance stores, which was permitted in France during the War, should not be continued for the benefit of the Army at home?

Captain GUEST: Officers serving either at home or overseas are permitted to purchase from the Royal Army Ordnance Corps any available article of equipment which forms part of the officer's regulation kit.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (LONDON).

Colonel Sir H. NORRIS: 64.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the cost on public funds of the following elections held in London every three years, namely, the
London County Council, the guardians, and the borough councils, held respectively in March, April, and November; whether a saving of public funds and the time of the electors would be effected by holding all three elections on one and the same day; and if he will take the necessary steps to institute this reform at the next series of elections?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): The expenses charged on the local rates of conducting local elections in London in 1912–13, the last year for which complete particulars are available, were, I understand, as follows:—



£


London County Council
11,025


Guardians
5,994


Metropolitan Borough Councils
11,956


As the elections are not held for identical areas, I am afraid there would be some difficulty in holding them together, and my right hon. Friend cannot undertake at present to propose legislation on the subject.

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CASES, STOKE PARK COLONY.

Mr. RENDALL: 85.
asked the President of the Local Government Board what steps he is taking, or intends to take, with regard to the fact that mental defective cases admitted from all parts of the country to the Stoke Park Colony in the Chipping Sodbury Union are, when certified as lunatics, sent to the Gloucester County Asylum and remain chargeable to the union until the union can find a settlement and get the particular union to accept chargeability; whether he is aware of the difficulty of proving such settlement and the charges thus falling on the ratepayers; and whether the Board of Control are doing anything to remove this injustice?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am informed that since the Mental Deficieny Act came into operation in 1913, ten inmates of Stoke Park Colony have been sent to the Gloucester County Asylum. In three of these cases the place of settlement has not been ascertained, and the cost of the
patients' maintenance falls under the existing law on the Chipping Sodbury guardians. In some of the other cases the Chipping Sodbury guardians have also, I understand, been put to certain expense in ascertaining the place of settlement. The difficulty could only be met by legislation, and the Board of Control have noted the point for consideration with other amendments of the Mental Deficiency Act.

Mr. RENDALL: Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope that legislation will be brought in on this subject—it would be uncontroversial in all probability?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes; as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.

WELSH PROVISIONS.

Mr. GOULD: 87.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received copies of a resolution passed by the National Free Church Council of Wales, a conference representative of the medical profession of South Wales and Monmouthshire, a conference representative of the Welsh educational authorities in Wales, and from associations of Welsh approved societies in Wales, expressing dissatisfaction with the Welsh provisions in the Ministry of Health Bill; and whether, in view of such influential representations, he proposes to move Amendments on the Report stage giving to Wales the same degree of autonomy in health and insurance matters as is proposed for Scotland and Ireland in the measure now before Parliament?

Major ASTOR: My right hon. Friend has received certain resolutions to the effect stated in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

WOMEN ELECTORS.

Mr. MACMASTER: 88.
asked the President of the Local Government Board by how many, approximately, would the votes of electors in the United Kingdom be increased if the votes of women between twenty-one and thirty years of age with the same voting qualification as men were added to the registers?

Major ASTOR: I am afraid I cannot give any very reliable figures, but the estimated number is over five millions. I will circulate a memorandum showing how this estimate is arrived at.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WAR STOCK).

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 89.
asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the London County Council recently invested a sum of £10,000,000 in War Stock, and will he state how so large a sum came to be in the hands of the council if not immediately required for the public service?

Major ASTOR: I understand from the Comptroller of the London County Council that in the course of the past four years the county council has invested all its available funds in National War Stock Bonds, and that the total amount of such securities now held by the Council is £10,303,175. Nearly the whole of the money so invested was derived from the cash which the council is required by Statute to provide each year for sinking fund purposes and which will go ultimately to the redemption of Londan County Council Stock.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Would it not meet with the right hon. Gentleman's sympathetic approval to suggest that the London County Council might devote this huge sum to the promotion of their housing scheme?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

FARINA.

Captain SHAW: 90.
asked the Food Controller if the farina mill being built at Monckie, in the county of Forfar, is being built and equipped by the Government; if so, if he can state the estimated cost; and if he can say when the mill will be ready to begin the manufacture of farina?

Mr. McCURDY: The farina mill at Monckie is being built and equipped by the British Farina Mills, Limited. The estimated cost of the mill, including buildings and plant, is £66,000, the greater part of which is being advanced to the firm by the Government. The mill is expected to be ready for operation in time to deal with the potato crop during the coming season.

Captain SHAW: Will delivery of the crop be taken before 1st June next?

Mr. McCURDY: So far as the information I have goes, there is no reason to doubt that the potato crop will be taken delivery of by that time.

POTATOES.

Captain SHAW: 91.
asked the Food Controller if he can say the tonnage of potatoes which he intends to export per week from Scotland to the Continent of Europe; and whether he has arranged for the necessary shipping facilities?

Mr. McCURDY: The tonnage of potatoes to be exported from Scotland to the Continent of Europe will depend upon the result of negotiations now proceeding with the German Government. Shipping facilities have been arranged to lift the potatoes already contracted for, and further tonnage will be made available as required.

JAPANESE PEAS.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: 92.
asked the Food Controller what is the total amount of Japanese peas now held by the Ministry of Food on behalf of the Government, and in the hands of the merchants?

Mr. McCURDY: The stocks of Japanese peas held by the Royal Commission on the Wheat Supply (including a small quantity not yet shipped) amount to 29,000 tons. No information as to the stocks in merchants' hands is available.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: 93.
asked the Food Controller whether immediate steps can be taken to export Japanese peas, now in the hands of the Government, to Allied or enemy countries in order to obviate the inevitable shortage of peas produced in the coming season in this country, unless the position is made clear to farmers in the next fortnight?

Mr. McCURDY: For some time past, licences have been granted to traders for the export of Japanese peas to approved destinations. In view of the cereal position in the Far East, and the uncertainty as to future supplies, it is not considered desirable to dissipate entirely the stocks at present held by the Government.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take any action in view of the fact that there are now huge quantities in the hands of merchants which prevent any sale of home produced peas during this season?

Mr. McCURDY: Licences have already been granted for the export of these stocks.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: But where are the peas to go to? The neutral countries refuse to take them and Germany cannot have them because the merchants cannot arrange finance.

Mr. McCURDY: I cannot say how a market can be found if neutral countries are not prepared to take them but that is not the information in my possession.

Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: As neutral countries cannot take them is it not easy to arrange for Germany to have them?

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. ATKEY: 96.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is in accordance with the law for an old age pensioner of 80 years to be deprived of his pension by reason of his wife obtaining employment; whether the wife of an old age pensioner should be fined to the extent of her husband's pension, thereby in effect reducing her own earnings by that amount; and whether he would recommence payment of the husband's pension if he left his wife?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial secretary to the Treasury): I cannot express an opinion as to the application of the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act to an individual case without knowing the particulars of the means, etc. But if the hon. Member has a particular case in mind and will furnish me with the pensioner's name and address I will have inquiry made. I may, however, state generally, that Section 2 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, provides that "In calculating the means of a person being one of a married couple living together in the same house, the means shall be taken to be half the total means of the couple."

MEMBERS' CORRESPONDENCE (FREE POSTAGE).

Sir W. DAVISON: 101.
asked the Postmaster-General whether franked official postcards, with a formal acknowledgment of the receipt of a communication printed thereon, can be provided in the stationery boxes of the House for the use of Members, having regard to the increase in the
number of letters which Members now receive from their constituents on Parliamentary matters owing to the recent additions to the franchise and its extension to women?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): As will appear from my previous answers on this subject, I do not think that it would be expedient to make a grant of free postage to Members of either House of Parliament, in any form.

TELEPHONES (SURCHARGES).

Mr. STURROCK: 102.
asked the Postmaster-General upon what principle payment of special surcharges is demanded by the contract department of the Post Office Telephones; whether he is aware that in the case of the railway Hotel, Forfar, a surcharge for the installation of a telephone is quoted at £28 7s., although there is a telephone already installed next door to this hotel; and whether he is aware that surcharges, which in effect prevent the extension of the telephone system, are a barrier to the expeditious conduct of business?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The surcharge was adopted in 1915, when, in consequence of the general war conditions, it became necessary to restrict the supply of new telephone facilities to those applicants who were prepared to pay a contribution to the cost of construction based on the necessary outlay I am considering whether a modification of the conditions of the surcharge is now possible. I will have the correctness of the surcharge in connection with a telephone at the Railway Hotel, Forfar, verified.

STEEL RAILS (EXPORT TAX).

Mr. BLANE: 105.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Belgium is about to place large orders for rails; that German firms are quoting £2 per ton less than British firms, which difference is represented by the Export Tax from this country; and can he see his way to immediately remove this tax so that British firms may secure the orders?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not aware of any quotations by German concerns in the case to which the hon. Member refers, but I understand that a quotation was made
by a company having works in Luxemburg, which is stated by the Belgian Government to be Belgian controlled and to employ almost entirely Belgian labour. As regards the latter part of the question, there is no export duty on steel rails, but the hon. Member apparently has in mind the refund required by the Government of subsidies on steel production in the case of steel manufactures exported. These subsidies will cease on the 30th April, and the consequential refund on exports will come to an end in due course.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Are we to understand that no trade relations are allowed between Germany and Belgium?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. BLANE: If the hon. Gentleman will receive it, I shall be pleased to supply all the information that prompted the question.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I shall be very glad to receive it.

PENNAL WOODS, MERIONETH.

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 106
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many cords have been made at Pennal Woods and the cost per cord; whether a number have been made in situations from which their removal is either too costly or impossible; (2) whether about forty women are employed at Pennal Woods, county of Merioneth, in burning offal; whether he is aware that the timber now in course of removal grew from the roots of the preceding crop, and that burning offal only injures and retards the next growth; whether the women engaged in the work were brought to Pennal because of the difficulty of providing employment for them elsewhere; whether he will issue instructions to discontinue this expenditure of public money; (3) how many tons of swedes have been purchased and stored at Pennal Towers, county of Merioneth; and what was the price per ton paid for the same, including cartage; and whether he will state the purpose for which they were required, the name of the person from whom they were bought, and the name of the official responsible for the transaction?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Inquiries are being made, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (TEMPORARY OFFICERS).

Sir H. NIELD: 109.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the award of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Government Employés recently published granting a bonus and an increase of wages will apply to whole-time but temporary officers employed in the Ministry and its various sub-departments; and, if not, what provision is proposed to be made to increase the salaries of such officers who have for upwards of twelve months past been wholly engaged in the service of the Ministry?

Mr. BALDWIN: The award referred to applies only to permanent officers on scales of salary fixed on the basis of pre-war conditions. The salaries of temporary staff are normally fixed on the basis of war conditions, and any revision of their schemes must depend on the circumstances of each case.

ENEMY ALIEN IMMIGRATION.

Mr. LYLE: 113.
asked whether, on the declaration of peace, alien enemy immigration into this country can, if not controlled, be at once resumed; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will ensure the passage of the Aliens Restriction Bill at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. SHORTT: The powers under which the entrance of aliens into the United Kingdom has been controlled during the War are limited to times of war or of imminent national danger or great emergency. In the Aliens Restriction Bill I am asking for similar powers for use at any time during the next two years, and it is the intention of the Government to ensure the passage of that measure into law without any avoidable delay.

WAR LEGISLATION.

Mr. LYLE: 114.
asked what legislation enacted during the War will automatically lapse on the declaration of peace provided no steps are taken to extend it in any form?

Mr. SHORTT: The Register of Expiring Laws which is published annually by this
House contains all the Acts which expire at the end of the War. I understand that the register for the present Session is now in print, and will be issued in a week or two.

POLICEWOMEN.

Mr. CAIRNS: 115.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can take steps to employ policewomen on duties such as inspection of cinemas, care of licensed children on the stage, supervision of registry offices, enforcing Children's Act, taking female prisoners to and fro, cases of child murder at birth and concealing birth, cases of indecency and immorality in Court, and similar matters?

Mr. SHORTT: Provision is already made in the Metropolitan Police for the care of female prisoners by police matrons, and for the investigation of cases of a sexual character in which girls and children are concerned by a lady assistant who attends Court with the witnesses. A body of women patrols is also being recruited for work in the streets, and over forty are already doing duty. Some of the matters referred to in the question are under the control of the county council. Policewomen are also largely employed by county and borough police authorities who assign to them the duties they are best qualified to discharge.

Mr. CAIRNS: Does this apply to the whole of London?

Mr. SHORTT: To every police force all over the country.

ALIENS RESTRICTION ACT, 1914.

Sir H. NIELD: 116.
asked what Orders in Council or otherwise have been made under the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, distinguishing such of them as were in existence at the date of the Armistice with Germany, and giving, as to all Orders so made, the date and reference or other particulars whereby the same may be identified?

Mr. SHORTT: It may be convenient if I circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement in answer to this question.

The following is the statement referred to:

The various Aliens Restriction Orders issued down to and including 4th March, 1918, were consolidated and printed as the Aliens Restriction Order, 1918.

Between March, 1918, and the date of the Armistice with Germany three further Orders in Council were issued on the 4th June, 19th July and the 23rd October respectively, and since the Armistice two further Orders have been issued on the 18th December and 24th February respectively. These five amending Orders are printed as Statutory Rules and Orders Nos. 603, 935, 1356 and 1710 of 1918 and No. 195 of 1919.

No. 603 provides for the grant of exemption to certain Turkish subjects; No. 935 requires all aliens to obtain identity books; No. 1356 contains new provisions in regard to change of residence by aliens; No. 1710 deals with British-born wives or widows of alien enemies, and No. 195 revokes Article 22 C. and the fifth and sixth Schedules of the main Order and amends the definition of Belgian refugee.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES (DECORATIONS).

Sir S. SCOTT: 117.
asked whether the Government intend to grant any decoration or medal to special constables who have given their services during the War?

Mr. SHORTT: I would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply I gave on 19th March to the right hon. Member for Woolwich, to which I cannot at present add anything.

S.S. "BERWICK CASTLE."

Mr. PRETYMAN: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to repatriate a large number of commissioned officers of the South African Contingent on the steamship "Berwick Castle" on the 10th instant; whether many of the bunks are destitute of all privacy and are fitted up in the hold of the vessel; whether the smoking and recreation room accommodation provides for only fifty of about 700 officers, and whether the accommodation provided is wholly insufficient and unsuitable, especially for a voyage in the tropics; and, if so, will he cancel these arrangements and provide suitable accommodation for repatriation of Colonial officers to whom the Empire is so much indebted for their services?

Mr. CHURCHILL: These officers had not completed their training when the
War came to an end. They were given commissions because they had so nearly completed their training that it was thought they should have their commissions, but they are not officers of the contingent that fought in France. The officers who are sailing in the "Berwick Castle" are extremely anxious to return to South Africa, and it has been explained to them that owing to the limitations of shipping, they must either accept second-class accommodation or postpone their departure for several months. Each cadet was individually given the option as to whether he would make use of this accommodation or not, and all have accepted in writing. Every possible effort has been made by the Ministry of Shipping to make the conditions as comfortable as possible, and the accommodation has been approved by the General Officer Commanding South African Forces. The bunks are between decks, and it is not accurate to say that they are in the hold of the vessel. Otherwise the facts are generally as stated in the first part of the question, but the conditions are as good as in camp life or in a hospital ship, and although it is true that the vessel will cross the tropic zone, the heat on the western side of Africa is not very severe at this time of year. The Government would very much prefer to send the officers to their homes in a more comfortable manner, but the House is aware of the shipping position, which leaves them no alternative if the repatriation is to take place without further prolonged delay.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Will my right hon. Friend undertake that no officer is compelled to sail on this ship who has not signed a statement that he is willing to do so?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

Mr. PRETYMAN: That is all I require.

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [Bill 72.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the transfer of the business of the Bankers' Guarantee Trust to the Alliance Assurance Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [Bankers' Guarantee Trust (Transfer) Bill [Lords.]

BANKERS' GUARANTEE TRUST (TRANSFER) BILL [Lords].

Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill,

Northampton Gas Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

CAVENDISH CLARKE'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee on Divorce Bills; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the third time.

Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings in the House of Lords on the Second Reading of Cavendish Clarke's Divorce Bill [Lords], together with the documents deposited in the case, be returned to the House of Lords.—[The Lord Advocate.]

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).

Sir HARRY SAMUEL reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday, 7th May, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

BILL PRESENTED.

BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (CROSSLEY AND PORTER ORPHAN HOME AND SCHOOL) CONFIRMATION BILL,—"to confirm a
Scheme approved and certified by the Board of Education under the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, relating to the Crossley and Porter Orphan Home and School," presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Fisher, Mr. Whitley, Mr. James Parker, and Mr. Ramsden; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 58.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Workington Corporation, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Swinton and Mexborough Gas Board, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."
3. "That, in the case of the Leicester Corporation, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."
4. "That, in the case of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements), Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH (MEDICAL TREATMENT OF CHILDREN — IRELAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 73.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 73.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

Orders of the Day — NOTICES OF MOTION:

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE.

Captain TERRELL: To call attention, on this day three weeks, to the administration of the Board of Agriculture, and to move a Resolution.

FOOD PRICES.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: To call attention, this day three weeks, to food prices, and to move a Resolution.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Major C. LOWTHER: To call attention, this day three weeks, to the injustice of capital punishment, and to move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Lord E. Talbot.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.

Order read for consideration,

As amended (in the Standing Committee).

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): I beg to move,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 10 standing in the name of the Attorney-General for Ireland.
The object of this Motion is to carry cut an arrangement arrived at with regard to the Clause relating to Ireland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Application to Ireland.)

(4) The expenses of the Chief Secretary and of the Irish Public Health Council under this Act, including reasonable compensation to members of that council for loss of remunerative time, shall be paid in like manner as the expenses of the Ministry.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), after the word "including," to insert the words
a salary to the chairman of the council of such amount as may be determined by the Chief Secretary with the approval of the Treasury.
This is an Amendment to carry out an arrangement entered into with the approval of all sides of the House. When the Bill was going through the Standing Committee it was decided that the chairman of the Irish Public Health Council should be a whole time officer, and the question of remuneration had to be decided before the matter was finally settled.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: After the word "to" ["members"], insert the words "the other."—[Mr. Samuels.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported.

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The proposed Clause [Application to Wales] in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea North (Mr. Morris) is out of order, as it goes beyond the scope of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(General Powers and Duties of Minister in Relation to Health.)

It shall be the duty of the Minister in the exercise and performance of any powers and duties transferred to him by or in pursuance of this Act, to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures conducive to the health of the people, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the collection, preparation and publication of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.

Mr. STEWART: I beg to move, after the word "diseases" ["cure of diseases"] to insert the words
including venereal diseases and the confidential notification thereof.
I think it would be a great mistake if we confined this Bill to mere matters of machinery. It seems to me to be a fine opportunity for a review of the national health, and, if possible, to devise some method of meeting one of the greatest enemies of the human race. The Local Government Board claim that they have the power now to make these particular diseases
notifiable, but there is a widely-expressed wish and desire, not only on the part of Members of this House but of the general public as well, that legislation of this sort should be by Act of Parliament rather than by Orders in Council or by Departmental action. I have here a resolution, passed on the very subject we are now discussing, from the Women's Local Government Society, in which they favour legislation on this subject, if there is any, being by Act of Parliament.
4.0 P.M.
In days gone by we were debarred from dealing with this subject by a general feeling of modesty, but the War has been a great educator in this as in other matters, and the question of notification is now well known to five or six million of men who served in the forces, and through them to a very large number of the population. We are all desirous of protecting society against an evil, the effect of which cannot be exaggerated, and the only difference between us is in regard to the method we should adopt. Those who are opposed to notification say that it would tend to more secrecy. That is largely a matter of opinion. Against the natural desire for secrecy you must put the common sense and the instinct of self-preservation which the sufferer naturally feels. Many of those who are opposed to notification have admitted to me that it ought to be done. I submit that when you get to that frame of mind when you say a thing ought to be done you have taken a very long step in the direction of doing it. The opponents of notification are in many instance members of the medical profession. They are so obsessed with sympathy for the sufferer who consults them that I think that they are apt to minimise the danger to the public. Those of us who are in favour of notification are out to protect, not only the sufferers, but the community as a whole. We are not advocating a thing that has not been tried. Notification is working in a great many of the States of America, especially in Illinois, and there, from information which is obtainable by anybody who takes an interest in the matter, it will be found that it works very quickly and satisfactorily, and that the sufferer is in no way incommoded—in fact, the only person who knows his name is his own medical adviser. The name is notified by a number to the principal officer of health, and so long as the sufferer accepts
the treatment of his own medical adviser his name is never revealed. If we in this country administered this Act under somewhat similar conditions it would be in no way derogatory to the doctors, but it would tend to increase their influence in the country, because they would more and more become the father confessors and advisers of their patients.
Another objection to notification is that there is restraint. We should ask ourselves the question whether we have any moral right to interfere with the liberty of the individual in a matter of this kind. I am prepared to state emphatically that we have a moral right to do so, and the plain question I should like to put is, Whether a man or a woman should be allowed, with impunity, to inflict perhaps an irreparable injury upon their fellow citizens? That cannot be allowed for a moment. You restrain people in regard to other matters. If a man is intoxicated he is restrained and, if necessary, put in gaol, but he is not so dangerous to his fellow men as the man who is suffering from this particular malady. We have in this country already notification of a certain form of ophthalmia arising from venereal disease and the results are particularly good. A case of that sort affects the family. It affects a married man and his wife, that the disease should be notifiable in the case of their child. That is a greater step than notifying the case of any one particular individual. If the result is good as regards the offspring of a person suffering from venereal disease, I ask myself the question, Why should it not be equally efficacious if applied to the parent? This question was discussed in the House of Lords recently and a grave statement was made as to the national position. We heard last Friday from a gallant Member of this House a moving statement that the real tragedy of this War was that the young women of this country were deprived of their mates. The tragedy would be very much aggravated if we failed to make the best efforts we possibly can to see that those mates that are available for them are healthy and fit to carry on this country. What are the results of our present methods? I do not wish to appear as an alarmist or a croaker, but I cannot say that they are encouraging. If we take stock of our present position, what do we find? The last Royal Commission stated that there were three million syphilitic people in the community. There are probably more now. What the figures
are as regards gonorrhœa I do not know, but they must be very heavy, and we, who have an enormous responsibility in every quarter of the globe, must realise that such a position is profoundly unsatisfactory, and I suggest that a strengthening of our machinery for dealing with these evils is now overdue. I by no means say that notification is a specific cure for the evils with which we are faced, but it is a step in the right direction and we ought to give the system a trial. An article in the "Times" on the 4th April dealt with the gravity of venereal disease and the effect of the American system. There is an illuminating article in the same journal this morning giving some account of the International Congress on this particular point now being held at Cannes. There one of our own officers said that if they could get these sufferers into their hands on the first day of their ailment they could probably cure everybody in ten days. Let us do everything to bring that about. Backing up the article in the "Times" of the 4th April there appeared a letter signed by six leading medical men in this country, and it was upon that letter that I ventured to bring this question up for a second time. The letter says:
We observed with great satisfaction that Lord Willoughby de Broke, speaking in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 2nd April, on the subject of venereal infection expressed his opinion that the time was approaching when notification will have to be considered as a means of securing better control of these communicable diseases. We cordially agree with his statement.
That letter was signed by Sir William Osler, Dr. G. Eric Pritchard, Dr. W. Hale-White, Sir G. Lenthal Cheatle, Dr. W. H. Clayton Greene, and Sir James Purves Stewart. I am aware that in this matter I am not entirely in accord with some of the medical Members of this House, and I hope they will not take it badly of me if I take my stand with the six doctors whose names I have given, in bringing forward this matter again. I think notification would be a very valuable step. The effect of it would be a deterrent in many ways, and it would be an additional safeguard. These are my reasons for bringing forward this matter which was turned down in the Grand Committee upstairs.

Mr. CAIRNS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hold in my hand the Report of a certain hospital in the North of England for the year 1917. There were 2,638 cases of venereal disease, and in the following year there were 2,971 cases, with twenty-four beds set apart to deal with this disease. We have had to build a special wing for the hospital which has cost a large amount of money, and this class of case is being dealt with there. The men I have seen brought there were strong men, and some of the finest specimens of the human family. I should like to call a spade a spade, but it might not be allowed. It is not only the adult population that has to suffer from this disease, but it is the generations that follow. We are told by medical men that many cases of blindness are brought on by this disease. We are told by some of our medical men that in certain institutions where soldiers were that nobody ought to be allowed to put their bare hands on the door handles in case they might get infection. I am only a layman, but I have been connected with hospital work for many years, and what I have seen has impressed me very much. I think this mad dog of disease ought to be got hold of. If people have measles in a house the disease has to be notified, and in case of other fevers and small-pox people have to be taken away to hospital; but this particular disease is allowed to go on without notification. The institutions in the North have to be maintained largely by the subscriptions of working men, and these people who are suffering from venereal disease keep respectable, clean people out of the hospitals who meet with accidents or ordinary disease. Lots of cases have occurred where workmen are kept away from their employment because cases of syphilis and gonorrhœa have to be admitted into the hospitals. Doctors, disagree about it, and if the doctors disagree we will come in and settle the question. Medicine is not an exact science yet. They do not know everything in Heaven and earth, but I believe they would know more if there were more money spent, and if the purse-strings of the Treasury would allow them to spend more money on research. I hope that this House will agree to include this in the Bill, for the-sake of the coming generations that are yet unborn. Let us kill it at once.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Major Astor): The Mover and Seconder of this Amendment have discussed a matter which is of vital importance to the
community at large. I take it that they bring forward this Amendment because they are not perfectly satisfied that the Department are doing as much as they might be doing in the matter, and because they think it ought to be made a notifiable disease. I do not quite know what the Mover of the Amendment had in mind when he suggested notification. He does not say, for instance, on the Paper, that it is to be compulsory. I am not certain whether he wants compulsory notification to be followed by compulsory treatment, and, if he means compulsory treatment, whether he means that that treatment should be continued compulsorily until a complete cure has been effected. I only mention these points because, if the Committee were to go into this in detail, it would have to decide quite clearly how far it ought to go in these directions, and my hon. Friend knows as well as I do, because he attended the conference the other day, that people who have gone into this subject for years very closely, and who have consulted experts, and taken evidence, are by no means agreed that you would achieve the results you desire if you were to go in for compulsory notification and treatment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see there are many hon. Members here who are of that opinion also, but I would like to make an appeal to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. If the Amendment were carried it would not really confer any new powers or obligations upon the Department. If it did, it ought to take the shape of a new Clause in the Bill. Clause 2 merely sets out the sort of reasons for which a Ministry of Health is to be set up. There shall be a Minister who shall co-ordinate existing methods, powers, and duties, and the whole of the Clause deals with existing powers and functions, so that if the object of the Amendment is to give new powers, this is not the proper place to do it. In view of the fact that there is obviously a great difference of opinion among Members of the House as to the merits and the results which would follow such a proposal as this, if it were included in the Bill, in view of the fact that there was so little support for this proposal in Standing Committee upstairs, in view of the fact that at a largely attended discussion which went on for nearly three hours upstairs the other day the general opinion of those present was that the measure would in effect defeat their object and their purpose, in view of the fact that
if these words were included they would only be illustrative of the sort of thing the Minister ought to do, and in view of the general desire of the House to get ahead and pass this Bill, I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not persist in the Amendment, and that we should not have a general discussion on the best way of dealing with venereal disease. Before sitting down, I want to assure the hon. Member and all who are interested in this most vital matter that the Department are doing all they can. At the present moment I am engaged in sifting out evidence that has been taken recently. We have had the evidence of experts, who have different methods of treating the disease, and I am sifting and correlating this evidence, and I am going to submit it then to the President, and if in his opinion further action and further powers are necessary I have no hesitation in saying that he will come to the House and ask for extra powers; but in the meanwhile, as my right hon. Friend explained to the Committee upstairs, he is going ahead, encouraging the establishment of centres where treatment and diagnosis may be obtained, and we have got a certain number—130 or 140—already provided by the local authorities. It is not nearly enough, but we are going ahead as fast as we can to try and get that number doubled, trebled, quadrupled. We are going ahead with propaganda and education, but, in our opinion, the particular proposal contained in this Amendment would not assist in eradicating or in diminishing this particular disease. I also venture to suggest to the Committee that this is not the moment or the place to discuss the treatment of this disease, and I hope the Mover and Seconder will allow the House to go on discussing the other Amendments on the Paper.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope my hon. Friends who have moved this Amendment will not, at any rate, press it to a Division. It is a subject of vital importance. That we all recognise. Great strides have taken place, and much benefit has already accrued. It is perfectly clear that unless you carry with you in these matters the solid body of reasonable public opinion you will set back a good deal of the progress which has already been made, and nobody wishes to do that. It chanced that yesterday evening I sat at dinner between two of the leading physicians in London, one of them certainly a man whose name is not only well known in this country but
of world-wide reputation, and deeply interested, of course, in this question. I asked them their opinion, and they were both of the same opinion, that at the present moment to make the notification compulsory would do harm rather than good; and one of them, the younger man, who has had a good deal to do with the working of the scheme at present in operation, told me that the existing arrangements were being very largely used and increasingly used. He pointed out to me, as an instance of how perhaps compulsory notification would damage it, that there are already several stations working in London. I do not know whether "stations" is the right word, but he told me that men from the North of London were brought to the South, and men from the South were taken to the East, and so on—anywhere rather than where they might chance to be known. And the mere fact that that was available for them—and people had got to know it was available—had led, in his opinion, without any doubt to a large increase in the use of these stations, if I may so call them. I therefore think, if I may be permitted to say so, that the view of the Government in regard to this Amendment is at present the correct one.

Major COURTHOPE: I am sorry the representative of the Local Government Board has taken the line he has. According to him, and here I agree with him, the addition of these words to the Clause would only be illustrative of the general work and powers which the Ministry is to undertake. If that is so, what is the objection to the words going in? It is admitted that this great evil requires very special treatment, and it is admitted, I believe, on all hands that this time of demobilisation is one of special danger in connection with venereal disease. Then why should the Ministry hesitate to have these specific words in their general powers Clause, drawing attention to the fact that it is one of the matters with which they have to deal? I feel that the resistance of this Amendment, and the refusal to draw attention to these words in the Bill, will be very discouraging to those who are very anxious that some special and prompt steps should be taken to prevent its spread. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman realises that at the present time soldiers suffering from this disease, and in an infective state, are being discharged from Cherry Hinton and other hospitals, and released to civil life? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his deci-
sion and allow the insertion of these or some other words drawing special attention to this matter. I believe it is generally admitted that but for what you might call compulsory notification of this disease in the Army, there would be far greater trouble from it than there is at the present time. I think it is also admitted that in those parts of the United States where there has been compulsory confidential notification it has worked well, and although I am merely a layman in these matters, I do hope that this question will receive more consideration than the speech of the hon. Member who answered the Amendment led us to suppose. The special steps that were taken to protect soldiers by Regulation 40 D were withdrawn owing to popular clamour, and that popular clamour took the line that anything one did should be applied impartially to both sexes. Notification fulfils this condition. I do hope we shall hear from the Minister something more of what he is prepared to do.

Sir W. WHITLA: We have just got into the dangerous position of having this question tried on a side issue, and I should like to keep the main issue before the House, which should be whether this is likely to lead to a diminution of venereal disease, and not whether it is expedient or inexpedient to tackle it under this Bill. As a medical man of fifty years' standing, I consider it is my solemn duty to warn the House that no greater fallacy can be conceived in the practical treatment of venereal disease than to think you have got a panacea by notification. The direct effect of notification is to drive nearly every man into the hands of a quack. Our terrible difficulty is this: A man comes before us an absolute wreck with syphilis. We can do nothing for him; he has been in the hands of a chemist or a blacksmith or some village quack Medical men in practice seldom find that a patient of theirs comes to them with syphilis. He goes to another medical man. We find the same thing among the people we know intimately—people who can trust us thoroughly, but who are ashamed. Supposing you had notification. Could there be anything more absurd than to think that by the mere fact of notification you could prevent the spread of the disease? That underlies all the arguments of the hon. Member, and that was at the back of his mind in moving this Resolution. I can see no advantage that can come from this. It can only drive the
victim to a quack. I have no sympathy with him, however. In fact, if I were not speaking in this House with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, I would state the measure I would deal out to him. I can see that no good whatever can come of this proposal. The fact that there are men in the Army under discipline, and who can be inspected, has no bearing on the question at all. Another argument put before the House involves a profound fallacy. The disease of conjunctivitis is a disease which appears soon after birth. It cannot be concealed, and not one layman in a dozen knows that it is gonorrhœal or venereal at all, so that the analogy has no bearing on this subject. I do beseech the House to give this Amendment a wide berth. You will only spread the disease and lose many lives by it, because the victim will not go to a physician.

Mr. T. SHAW: Speaking as a layman, I want to add my appeal to that of the hon. Member opposite. I believe that the policy laid down in the Amendment is the very reverse of the policy that the country ought to follow. All medical men to whom I have spoken on this subject agree that the great ravages of this disease are largely due to concealment, and if that be true in a state of things in which almost everybody knows that doctors keep their own counsel, what will the concealment be if everybody who goes to a doctor knows that he or she will be notified as suffering from the disease, which already makes one so ashamed that the ordinary doctor is shunned? I suggest that the very reverse of the policy suggested in the Amendment is what the country needs in order to stamp out this disease. Make the person who is suffering feel that he or she can consult a doctor without the slightest danger of disclosure, and that he or she can go to an institution where the utmost secrecy will be observed, and by that policy I believe there is a chance of stamping out the disease. I am not going to try to minimise the ravages of the disease, but I am going to say that from facts that have come under my own personal observation, there is the greatest doubt as to whether this danger is quite so serious as the public thinks it is. I was in charge, for a certain time, of five counties, and was responsible for getting men for the Army and Navy. I had, fortunately, two medical men who displayed the most meticulous care in the
collection of statistics as to the diseases which the people examined by the medical boards suffered from. Out of 217,000 cases of men examined, less than 800 were suffering from these diseases either acquired or hereditary. That is a most remarkable fact that struck me, and struck these medical men who collected the statistics. I do not base my argument on the fact that only 800 out of 217,000 were suffering from these diseases. If there were only eight, it would still be dangerous to the community; but I do insist on the point, so very well put by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that publicity in these things is likely to drive the man and woman to the quack, and secrecy and confidence are likely to bring them to the medical man, who can treat them properly. With the same desire as the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Amendment, namely, that these diseases should be stamped out, I ask the Committee to adopt a policy quite contrary from the one they advocate, believing that by that method we shall get better results.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out to the House that the discussion is really getting rather beyond the Amendment. The words of the Clause are that it shall be the duty of the Minister to take all steps "for the prevention and cure of diseases." That must, of course, include all diseases, venereal and others; and with regard to notification, if that is a means of prevention of disease, the power to apply that has already been given by the words already passed. The only question it appears to me now for the House to consider is as to whether of all the known diseases this special class of disease is to be selected from all the others for insertion in the Bill. So far as the Amendment is concerned, that seems to me the only question which arises for discussion.

Mr. STEWART: If the right hon. Gentleman has got the powers for notification I think he ought to use them, and if he has the powers I apologise for asking so very hard-worked and courteous a Minister to make another speech. I am quite prepared to leave the matter in your hands, Mr. Speaker, if you think the discussion has gone far enough, and I shall be quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment if you think it should be withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: My view was that it was useless to discuss the important ques-
tion whether notification of these diseases should take place or not. That was really all that was raised by this Amendment, and it did seem to me that the House, having passed the words "including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases," the power had already been given to the Minister to apply notification if he thought notification was desirable. Whether he applies it or not is a matter of administration, and it will be open to criticism in the future. I do not see myself that the addition of these words carries the powers already given by the Bill any further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, after the word "defects," to insert the words "the initiation and direction of research."
This Amendment makes good what appears to be an omission in the drafting of the Clause, and has to be inserted in order to make it quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Major BARNETT: I beg to move to leave out the word "and" ["preparation and publication"].
The object of this Amendment and that which follows is to strengthen the Bill in the matter of propaganda. Clause 2 already provides for the collection, preparation, and publication of information and statistics, but not for their dissemination. We have already heard from the Parliamentary Secretary as to the excellent work in propaganda which has been done in regard to venereal disease, and there are other subjects, such as diet and hygiene, which are equally important; therefore I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept these Amendments.

Sir W. CHEYNE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment, which makes clear what is our intention.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: After the word "publication," insert the words "and dissemination."—[Major Barnett.]

Lieutenant - Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
Provided that nothing in this Section shall compel any person to receive treatment who makes
a statutory declaration that upon conscientious grounds he objects to medical treatment and who, after making the declaration, does not by infection endanger the health of any other person.
The object of this Amendment is to meet the case of persons like Christian Scientists, who have conscientious objection to medical treatment. Let me say at once I do not in any way agree with the views of Christian Scientists; in fact, I imagine there are few Members in this House who would disagree with them more entirely than myself. But I move the Amendment because I feel that, both on grounds of justice and on grounds of expediency, it is much better not to compel persons, who conscientiously object to a particular form of treatment, to have that treatment imposed upon them. In the Committee the President of the Local Government Board used two arguments against this Amendment. In the first place, he said the Amendment, as it was first drafted, would cut across the various Infectious Diseases Acts, and would make it possible for the conscientious objector to avoid isolation in the event of his suffering from infectious disease, and, therefore, endanger the health of some other person. In the amended form in which I move this Amendment, I attempt to meet this case, and to exclude from its scope any provisions that may already be contained in Acts dealing with infectious diseases. If this Amendment be carried, it will not be possible for any conscientious objector to avoid isolation and by that means endanger the health of some third person. Secondly, the President of the Local Government Board, during the Committee Debate, urged that an Amendment of this kind was not required, for this Act gives the Ministry of Health no powers of this kind that it does not already possess. In that connection let me ask the President whether to-day he will make it quite clear to the House that he takes no powers whatever that will compel a conscientious objector to receive that medical treatment of which he disapproves. If the answer is in the affirmative, then let me urge upon him that there can be no objection to inserting this Amendment in the Bill. It will merely make what is the actual state of the law perfectly clear, and will prevent officials or other persons afterwards attempting, by means of administration, to carry out provisions which have not been, by legislation, included in the Act.
Let me further urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal we are
making is no new one. In the case of the Vaccination Acts it is, of course, known to every Member that a Clause of this kind has been inserted. More recently than that, in the various Administrative Provisions Acts for conferring various powers upon the Board of Education a specific proviso is there included stating that no person could be compelled to accept medical treatment for his or her children. It seems to me that this House, having already granted a Clause of this kind in the case of children, no reason whatever remains why it should not also now grant it in the case of parents. I hope that in any case the President will satisfy the House that he intends to take no powers that he does not already possess of compelling persons to accept medical treatment of which they disapprove.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: This Amendment reproduces in a somewhat modified form the Amendment which the hon. Baronet reminds us was discussed in Committee at great length. After the discussion in Committee there was a Division on the Amendment, which was rejected by 33 votes to 14. I am not going to weary the House by going over the ground which I then went over with respect to the Amendment. I recognise the hon. Baronet has modified his Amendment in an endeavour to meet the objections which I brought forward in Committee. In the first place, however, I can give him the assurance for which he asks. There is nothing in this Bill which enlarges the power of the Minister; it simply transfers the powers now exercised by the Department specified. There is no enlargement of any kind in respect of this matter. Since the Debate in Committee I have had this matter very carefully gone into with a view to seeing what are the existing powers which would enable us to compel a man to conform who objected to medical treatment. I did not find any. In infectious diseases, even in the case of a person who is suffering, say, from diphtheria, and is removed under a compulsory notification order to an infectious hospital, if, apparently, that person should be of opinion that the administration of an antitoxin was contrary to his religious or other belief then it is the practice—I cannot say it is the law, because it seems to have been adapted—but it is certainly the practice
never to administer it. We have all learnt enough in these days, I think, to be wise enough not to try to force some particular method of treatment upon people who object to it, even if they are acting to their own detriment and suffer the consequences of their own convictions. We are taking no new powers. I can assure the hon. Baronet, and the House, that if I want powers to impose some form of treatment upon anybody I shall certainly come down to the House and say so. I shall ask specifically the permission of the House for the extra powers required.
Judging, I think, from my political experience up to the present I should hesitate a good deal, knowing the temper of the House in these matters, before I came down, and asked for such powers. To begin to cumber up the Bill with all kinds of provisions of this kind would only be to open up a vista of difficulty for the future. Take the Amendment:
Provided that nothing in this Section shall compel any person to receive treatment who makes a statutory declaration that upon conscientious grounds he objects to medical treatment—
You will require some machinery for that statutory declaration. So far as I know, and can make out, we have not this power at present. We should require some machinery for taking and recording statutory declarations. The Amendment goes on
and who, after making a declaration, does not by infection endanger the health of any other person.
Who is to say whether or not the person is doing that? The local magistrate who has received the statutory declaration? There is a certain doubt whether such conscientious objector does or does not endanger the health of other people by so doing. I should be very sorry to have to judge in the vast majority of cases. How are you going to prove that the person did or did not? It is almost impossible except in an institution or in the case of some infectious disease, which is now notifiable which the community has said for its own protection should be specially treated and isolated. It is not the intention of the hon. Baronet that we should seize and isolate individuals highly infectious?

Sir S. HOARE: No.

Dr. ADDISON: Very well, if that is the case I do not see any benefit by the insertion of this Amendment. Let me, on the understanding which I have previously stated—I hope quite frankly—say that if
we want any additional powers we will come and ask for them. We have, however, to bear in mind that in demobilisation there are some very difficult points. A number of experts and others from the different Departments are now working under the chairmanship of my hon. and gallant Friend to see what they can advise to safeguard the country from the introduction of a number of tropical diseases which hitherto, or for a long time, have been almost foreign to our country. Some of these are not now notifiable. If we want to notify them we must obtain powers in the proper way. I ask the House not to tie us up by provisions of this kind. Administratively they are quite unworkable, and achieve no useful purpose, because we have not the powers in the Bill. They will only create a difficulty, and will do no good. I assure the House that if I should become so misguided and in the frame of mind I have indicated so as to want the powers mentioned, I will come to the House and report. With that assurance I hope the hon. Baronet will be satisfied.

Sir S. HOARE: It may perhaps expedite the proceedings if I say that after the definite assurance of the President of the Local Government Board that he does not contemplate any new powers in this Bill of the sort I have described I am ready to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 3.—(Transfer of Powers and Duties to and from Minister.)

(1) There shall be transferred to the Minister—

(a) all the powers and duties of the Local Government Board;
(b) all the powers and duties of the Insurance Commissioners and the Welsh Insurance Commissioners;
(c) all the powers of the Board of Education with respect to attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers and of children who have not attained the age of five years and are not in attendance at schools recognised by the Board of Education; all the powers and duties of the Board of Education with respect to the medical inspection and treatment of children and young persons;
(d) all the powers of the Privy Council and of the Lord President of the Council under the Midwives Acts, 1902 and 1918;
(e) such powers of supervising the administration of Part I. of the Children Act, 1908 (which relates to infant life protection), as have heretofore been exercised by the Secretary of State:

(2) It shall be lawful for His Majesty from time to time by Order in Council to transfer to the Minister—

(a) all or any of the powers and duties of the Minister of Pensions with respect to the health of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service;
(b) all or any of the powers and duties of the Secretary of State under the enactments relating to lunacy and mental deficiency;
(c) any other powers and duties in England and Wales of any Government Department which appear to His Majesty to relate to matters affecting or incidental to the health of the people.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), after the word "Education" ["recognised by the Board of Education"], insert "(d)."—[Dr. Addison.]

Sir CYRIL COBB: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (c), to insert
Provided for under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, as amended and extended by Section eighteen of the Education Act, 1918.
This Amendment is designed to define more clearly what is meant by the medical inspection and treatment of school children. The school medical service, as exercised, includes a very great deal more than can be, may be, strictly called medical inspection and treatment. When we were discussing this Clause upstairs, it appeared that there was some difference of opinion as to what was or was not meant, and it seems that the words "medical treatment" included a great number of things which I do not think it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to take over from the Board of Education to the Ministry of Health. My Amendment quotes Section 13 of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, which did define what was meant by medical inspection and medical treatment. That Section says:
(b) The duty to provide for the medical inspection of children immediately before or at the time of, or as soon as possible after their admission to a public elementary school, and on such, other occasions as the Board of Education direct, and the power to make such arrangements as may be sanctioned by the Board of Education for attending to the health and physical condition of the children educated in a public elementary school
I see no definition of medical inspection and medical treatment which, as I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take into the charge of the Ministry of Health. The Board of Education has to a certain extent defined what that medical treatment and medical inspection is in its stricter sense, because when the Board of Education first of all goes to the Treasury
for a Grant for medical treatment and medical inspection they make the local education committee fill up a form for that particular Grant and for no other. All matters connected with the physical welfare of the children are included in that Grant, but the actual Grant for medical treatment and medical inspection of the children is confined strictly to the actual treatment of the diseases from which the children are suffering and which are discovered by virtue of the medical inspection which is compulsory on the school children.
5.0 P.M.
My object is to provide some words which will so define medical inspection and medical treatment that it will include all these other things which are necessary for physical welfare. We have been told that physical training is not included, and is not taken over by the Minister of Health. There is a distinction between control and administration. I want the control of medical inspection and medical treatment to be in the hands of the Minister of Health, but I want the administration of the medical inspection and treatment of all those other things cognate to that and generally for the physical welfare of the children in the schools to remain in the hands of the Board of Education. That, I think, was the general sense of the Committee upstairs. I am only trying to obtain some more definite definition of what is meant by medical treatment and medical inspection as it occurs in this Clause of the Bill, so that I may get it confined to the strict sense which the Board of Education wishes it to be confined to, because when the Grant was given for this purpose it was quite clear it was only for medical inspection and medical treatment in the strict sense of the term.

Amendment not seconded.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, e), to insert the words
Provided that, for the purpose of facilitating the effective exercise and performance of these powers and duties, the Minister may make arrangements with the Board of Education respecting the submission and approval of schemes of local education authorities and the payment of grants to local education authorities, so far as such schemes and payment relate to or are in respect of medical inspection and treatment; and the powers and duties of the Minister may under any such arrangements be exercised
and performed by the Board on his behalf and with his authority under such conditions as he may think fit.
We had on the Committee a long discussion as to the duties of the President of the Board of Education in relation to medical treatment of school children, which has just been referred to by the last speaker, and although I endeavoured, without success, to persuade the Committee that the course they were suggesting was a little rash, they decided otherwise. At the conclusion of our proceedings, with the concurrence of the Committee, I said:
It must be open for the Government to review the situation, and if we really find it vitally necessary for administrative purposes and the working of the services of the Education Department to bring up words on Report which will meet the administrative difficulties, which I am sure the carrying out of the Amendment proposed would certainly make for us, I must be at liberty to do so.
Those on the Committee will recollect that statement, and the words I have put down on the Paper are in consequence of that consideration. The President of the Board of Education and myself have carefully considered this question, not from the point of view in any way of going back upon the decision of the Committee, for we have faithfully accepted that, but in order to make that decision administratively workable. May I state here that if my hon. Friend (Sir C. Cobb) had found a seconder for his Amendment I should have had no objection to his words, because they are really what we intended the Clause to mean. The present procedure is that the local education authority submits a scheme to my right hon. Friend, and that scheme includes all sorts of educational services, such as the provision of meals, gymnastics, medical inspection and treatment, and inter alia special schools. All these are included in the scheme which is submitted to the Board of Education, and that Board decides thereupon what Grant the authority is to receive. In coming to a decision as to the Grant, of course the Board of Education naturally attaches importance to this or that item in the general scheme. There are technical schools, provision of meals, medical inspection, and the rest of it, but, as I told the Committee, it would interfere with the whole system, which has been gradually and laboriously built up, whereby there is a block Grant amount in respect of education generally, if we had to take bits out and administer that on the advice of some other Department.
We have endeavoured in the Amendment on the Paper to secure to the Minister of Health the responsibility which the Committee wished to attach to him directly in respect of medical inspection and treatment, and at the same time to set out arrangements which would make the formulation of schemes and the determination of Grants thereupon as between the local education authorities, and the Board of Education possible of continuance on more or less the same lines upon which they have been found workable, and which we still find workable. If the House will look at the Amendment, they will see that we have taken the words of the Amendment inserted in Committee, and I propose to add at the end the words on the Order Paper. I would like to say that they are solely and wholly designed to carry out what I said in the Committee, that I believe they are vitally necessary for administrative purposes in the services and the working of the Education Department as well as our own. As will be seen from the words of my Amendment, the whole power is in the hands of the Minister of Health, but he is allowed to make arrangements with the Board of Education in respect to the submission and approval of schemes and their formulation with regard to the payment of Grants for administrative purposes as I intimated might be found necessary. I want to assure the House that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself, in putting down this Amendment, are in any way trying to depart from the decision of the Committee, and we are only trying to put into a form of words such an arrangement as will be necessary to carry out the decision of the Committee, and I hope the House will accept this Amendment.

Sir C. COBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to insert my defining words after the word "treatment" in his Amendment?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would like to move an Amendment before my hon. Friend moves his own.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not received notice of any Amendment.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I do not know what these words actually mean that are being suggested in this Amendment, and I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman assures us that they do not go contrary to what the Committee decided. I am not quite clear about that. I look
upon this Amendment as upsetting what the Committee were very decided upon, namely, that the medical care of the children should be directly under the Minister of Health. This Amendment suggests that though they shall be nominally under the Minister of Health he shall take powers to enable him to hand over his responsibility to the Board of Education. That is exactly what the Committee refused to accept. We had two Ministers present to try and persuade us to accept that point of view. It was suggested over and over again in the Debate by both Ministers that it would not interfere in any way, and that it was usual for the Board of Education to do these things and that every thing was prepared. What was wanted, and what I do not see in these words, is that the doctors who do this inspection and everybody connected with the inspection shall be directly under the Minister of Health, and moreover that they should be paid by the Minister of Health.

Dr. ADDISON: They are.

Sir C. WARNER: They are not directly under him if they are paid by a Grant got from the Board of Education, and under those circumstances they will very soon cease to be responsible to the Minister of Health. This Amendment does not carry out what was absolutely accepted by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee. May I point out that there was practically no difference of opinion on the Committee, the Members of which were quite ten to one in favour of handing these duties over to the Minister of Health in spite of every argument raised against it. I hope, therefore, that these words will be left out altogether, or else that the words of the Minister in charge of this Bill will be modified in such a way as to make it clear that the inspecting officers and the doctors who do this work shall be paid by and shall be directly responsible to the Minister of Health and to nobody else. That was what was decided in Committee, and it was clearly stated. Whatever my right hon. Friend says that this Amendment does, it does not seem to me to carry out the intention of the Committee, and I shall go to a Division upon it.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and I am very disappointed to find this Amendment on the Paper. Hon. Members know that upstairs, if the Government had gone to a Division on
the Amendment that was proposed they would have been beaten by forty to one. In fact, I believe there was only one private Member present who would have voted in favour of the Government on that occasion. My right hon. Friend has quoted one extract, but I would like to quote another. During the Committee stage he said quite definitely:
This morning the Committee gave us our marching orders with regard to the medical treatment of school children, and we will do our best to act in accordance with that instruction.
I do not think that this Amendment is acting in accordance with the Instruction which the Committee gave upstairs, and I think I know what has happened. After that Amendment was carried, my right hon. Friend was rung up on the telephone by the Minister for Education, and they had a talk together on the subject. The Minister for Education arranged with my right hon. Friend that the Board of Education should get the power of acting. I am quite sure that something of that kind must have occurred. The whole idea of this Bill is that the Ministry should have the health of the country to look after, and there is no more important period of human life than the years between five and sixteen. I do hope that the House is not going to allow the duties that were given to my right hon. Friend upstairs to be taken away from him and placed once more under the Board of Education. I do not really know what we are to do with regard to this Amendment. It is very difficult to say how one can amend it to bring it into conformity with the principle which we carried upstairs. I should like to move, as a first Amendment—I will try to get it in as early as I can—after the word "may" ["the Minister may make arrangements with the Board of Education"], to insert the words
in respect of any areas where such a step may prove for the time being to be necessary.
It does not go nearly so far as I would like it. It does, however, mean that the Minister will not hand over straightway the whole of the powers, but that he will only hand them over in so far as he believes it would be difficult for him to exercise them in any particular area. I certainly will not press this Amendment if the House thinks that we can bind the right hon. Gentleman to what we agreed upon upstairs. If it is the general opinion of the House, I will certainly not move it. I am only anxious to bring it a little more in accordance with what we agreed upon
upstairs. I feel very strongly on the subject, and, if my right hon. Friend presses the matter, I am certainly prepared to go into the Lobby on it.

Sir P. MAGNUS: This proviso of the President of the Local Government Board has taken us a little by surprise, and it is very difficult indeed to understand exactly what powers and duties the Minister will discharge, and what powers and duties will be discharged by the President of the Board of Education. It is quite true, as stated by my hon. Friend opposite, that the Committee upstairs decided practically unanimously that the powers and duties of the Board of Education in respect of the medical inspection and treatment of children and young persons should be transferred from the Board of Education to the Ministry of Health. This refers not only to the medical inspection and treatment of young children in elementary schools, but also to the medical inspection and treatment of children in secondary schools, in continuation schools, and practically up to the age of eighteen—that is to say, during that important period of a young person's life between the ages of fourteen and eighteen. Surely, if there is to be a Ministry of Health, it is the duty of the Ministry to look after the medical inspection and treatment of these young persons. On the other hand, I realise to some extent that it may be desirable to make certain arrangements between the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education, particularly with regard to schemes that have to be approved. I therefore venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend whether it would not meet his purpose if this proviso stopped at the words "local education authorities," in which case it would be much shorter—
Provided that for the purpose of facilitating the effective exercise and performance of these powers and duties, the Minister may make arrangements with the Board of Education respecting the submission and approval of schemes of local education authorities.
If the proviso stopped there I think the difficulties that have been suggested might be to a large extent removed. It would not affect in any way the payment of Grants. I see no reason why, after this Bill has passed, the payment of Grants for medical inspection should be made by the Board of Education. I take it, if the Ministry of Health take over the medical staff of the Board of Education, as it is desired that they should do, with a view of co-ordinating these services, which we
were told was one of the main objects of this Bill, that the medical staff inspecting schools will be paid by the Ministry of Health. Therefore, these special Grants from the Board of Education will no longer be necessary. I throw that out as a suggestion, and if my right hon. Friend will agree to it, I think the Amendment may be accepted by all the Members of the House.

Sir EDGAR JONES: I stated my reasons in Committee why I disagreed with other Members in the original Amendment which was carried, and I do not want to go over the ground again, but really, having regard to what happened in Committee on everything else, I am surprised to find hon. Members using the same arguments again to-day. It seems to me that hon. Members are really determined to make the medical inspection of children in schools absolutely and totally unworkable in practice. I pointed out the practical considerations in Committee, and I may say that since then I have read letters from local education authorities and officials from all over the country thanking me for calling attention to the practical difficulties that would be created. I accepted the Amendment, however, and so has the Minister accepted it. The whole question of medical inspection is so wrapped up with the general work of the schools and so mixed up with the complicated Regulations of the Board of Education—I am sure that hon. Members who have had experience of local education authorities will support me—that to give no power to the Ministry of Health to make any kind of arrangements with the Board of Education really passes my comprehension. How on earth are the schools going to be worked if hon. Members stand up and say that to the Ministry of Health? [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Certainly that is the meaning of the objection to this Amendment. What do hon. Members substitute for it? What arrangements are hon. Members prepared to allow the Minister to make? The Minister has suggested here that he desires to make certain arrangements. Hon. Members want to delete it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] My hon. Friend behind me objected to it root and branch.

Sir C. WARNER: I never said anything of the kind. I never said that I insisted on deleting this. I said that unless the Minister found some other words which
would not contradict the promise we received upstairs, I should have to vote against the Amendment.

Dr. ADDISON: How does this contradict the decision of the Committee upstairs?

Sir C. WARNER: I thought that I had stated that. I thought that I had distinctly pointed to the fact that the doctors and inspectors would be paid by the Board of Education. I said that if we had an assurance that that was not so and that they would be directly under the Ministry of Health I would have no objection, but as I read the Amendment, and it is rather difficult to follow, I thought it did put the doctors under the Board of Education, that the Grants were to be given to the Board of Education, and that the Board of Education were to pay the doctors out of them.

Sir E. JONES: It is quite clear that this proviso of the Minister has been completely misunderstood, and that the objection to it is based upon a total misapprehension. This proviso does not provide that the Minister shall surrender again his power to arrange with the doctors and inspectors. He retains the initiative. He need not go to the Board of Education at all unless he wants to do so. Surely anybody who knows anything of the internal working of a school and anything at all about the difficulties of the local education authorities is not going to be a party to saying, if the Minister finds that he has got to make detailed arrangements about complicated schemes of local education authorities, and has got to disentangle complications with regard to the Grants, that they will not allow him to do it. I hope the House will support the Minister and will let him have a chance of working the thing out in practice.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I agree with what has been said by the majority of speakers that this Amendment appears fundamentally to be contradictory to the spirit of the decision of the Committee upstairs. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, the crux of the question is not so much the arrangement and control between the Minister of Health and the President of the Board of Education as the relationship that will exist in the local authorities. In this Amendment it distinctly states that the arrangements of the schemes are to be made by the local education authorities, and that the Grants are to be paid to them. That
seems to me to be absolutely contradictory to the finding of the Committee. The whole purpose of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman accepted upstairs was that the local health authority should be the administrative power in the schools with regard to the medical inspection of school children. Yet he has told us to-day that the schemes shall be drawn up, and that the administration shall be carried out by the local education authority. The whole spirit of the Amendment as carried upstairs was to put into the hands of the one local health committee the care of the mother before birth and the care of the child from birth through the infant stage, through the school stage, and afterwards; in fact, that there should be one medical officer, and one central co-ordinated health authority. This Amendment makes that impossible. The Amendment suggests that the schemes shall be prepared lay the local education authorities, and the Minister has said that the schemes are to be administered by them. That is absolutely contradictory to the decision of the Committee upstairs.

Dr. ADDISON: That was in the scheme.

Mr. THOMSON: I understand that the scheme is to be prepared by the local education authority and is to be carried out by the local health authority. If that is so, you are going to have confusion worse confounded. The whole spirit of Dr. Newman's last Report dealing with this question points to the inefficiency of local education authorities in dealing with the question of the health of children. As this matter has to be settled on the floor of the House, I hope I may be permitted to refer to one or two points in Dr. Newman's Report in regard to the administration of the health of the children, which to my mind this Amendment leaves to the local education authorities, and what is the position of these local authorities ten years after they were authorised to make provision for the medical inspection of children? Thirty-nine out of 319 education authorities have made no provision for medical treatment, and only thirty have provided complete schemes. In eighty-eight cases no school clinics have been established, ninety authorities have taken no steps to provide a supply of spectacles and 167 authorities have given no dental treatment at all. There are still a large number of authorities who seem to have been
unappreciative of their responsibility for the children of the State in this regard. What we want to do is to put in the hands of one co-ordinating authority the medical care of these children. I say that the Amendment now submitted by the Government goes absolutely contrary to the finding of the Committee, because it says that the administration of these schemes shall be carried out by the local education authorities. I hope the Government will see their way to withdraw this Amendment which hits at a vital principle of the whole scheme.

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps by leave of the House I may be permitted to again intervene in the Debate. Some hon. Members who have spoken on this subject have really not been fair to me. They do not seem to have read the Amendment. The hon. Member who spoke last was good enough to refer to some of the words of the Amendment, but the hon. Baronet behind me (Sir C. Warner) said something as to which the Amendment has no relation whatever. If he will look at the Amendment he will see that it does not in the first place imply or suggest that the medical officers who inspect the children will be appointed by the Board of Education or by the Ministry of Health. These officers never have been appointed by them. Up to the present they have always been appointed and paid by the local education authority, and I do not think anybody will suggest that in the next stage of our health proposals which we shall have to submit the unfortunate Minister of Health is going to be made responsible for the working of every scheme that the local health authorities may undertake. The local health authority will of course appoint their own officers, and therefore I think I can put that aside altogether. What the Committee decided upstairs we will faithfully preserve, and I still wait to learn from hon. Members in what respect we have departed from that understanding. We have honestly tried to carry it out, and I undertake to say that hon. Members cannot point to a single word in this Amendment which enables me to depart from the arrangement made upstairs.
What more can we do? The whole medical service, so far as doctors and inspection is concerned—the standard of their work, their work itself, the nurses, and all the paraphernalia—were to come under the Ministry of Health. They are
still under the Ministry of Health, and there is nothing in this Amendment which in any degree whatever removes them from it. It will be for the Minister to prescribe what services are to be rendered to school children or to anybody else, and he has complete power in that respect. What the Amendment does is this: it says that with respect to the submission and approval of schemes of local education authorities the Minister may make arrangements with the Board of Education. It is true, as the hon. Member who spoke last said, that it is the duty of the local education authority to prepare the schemes, but it will be for the local health authorities to make provision for, say, the children suffering from measles. They will have to provide the necessary accommodation, and schemes relating to these matters will be dealt with by the health authority. The whole thing is, in fact, left as the Committee upstairs desired. The next point is as to the payment of Grants to local authorities. It certainly is a matter of convenience, as must be well known to everybody who has worked under the Board of Education or has had anything to do With the working out of the complicated system of Grants, that all the Grants in respect of the services in connection with schools should go through one channel, or one authority; otherwise you get again into the morass from which we have been trying to escape so long. If you are going to give Grants to your local education authorities, let them all come from one source. It is for the Minister of Health under this to say in respect of expenditure incurred for these services whether they shall continue to perform these duties, and the whole thing is entirely at his discretion. I maintain that we have faithfully preserved, both in letter and spirit, the instructions of the Committee upstairs, and I have put nothing in this Amendment which seeks to avoid it in any way whatever. We are only trying to apply it in a practical administrative way, and I suggest, with great respect for my critics, that they have failed to point out to the House any single particular in which we have departed from the arrangement.

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: On the supposition that the medical officer of health is also acting for the local education authority, what will be the position? In the one case part of the salary would be paid by the Board of Education and
part by his own Department. In one case there is a refund of the 50 per cent. to the local authority; in the other case there will be no refund. I understand it is clearly to the advantage of the local authority for the payment to be under the Public Health Act, for more then will be refunded. We are all trying to get as much as we can, and I would suggest, therefore, that the payments that are to be made should be made through the public health authority and not through the education authorities. I happen to be chairman of a public health body, and a member of the local education authority, and I am perfectly convinced in my own mind that the work we do on the local education authority could be very much better done by the public health authority. I think it would be much more cheaply done, and I hope, therefore, that the payment will be made through the public health authority, for the reasons I have stated.

Sir CYRIL COBB: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "treatment" ["medical inspection and treatment"], to insert the words
provided for under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, as amended and extended by Section eighteen of the Education Act, 1918.
I should like to have these defining words put in. I am quite satisfied with the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given. I quite see myself, from my own knowledge of the London education authorities, that so far as we are concerned as one of the largest authorities and one which stands in the forefront of local education authorities, we should find no difficulty in the arrangement the right hon. Gentleman has laid down, provided we are quite clear what "medical inspection" and "medical treatment" really means. I am quite satisfied that instead of working through the Board of Education in this matter we should work through the Ministry of Health, and that the school medical officer should take his instructions from that body instead of from the Board of Education.

Dr. ADDISON: I am quite willing to accept these words.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted.

Sir CYRIL COBB: rose—

Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order. The next two Amendments on the Paper standing in my name and the names of other hon. Members raise points of substance and we desire to move them.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I understand that those Amendments are consequential and are part of a proposal which the hon. Member had on the Paper at an earlier stage, but when he was called he was absent from our deliberations.

Colonel GRETTON: The first Amendment—[To leave out Sub-section (2) and to insert the words, "It shall be lawful for His Majesty from time to time by Order in Council to transfer to the Minister all or any of the powers and duties set out in the Schedule to this Act."]—might be so regarded, but my second Amendment, to leave out paragraph (c) of Sub-section (2), I submit is strictly in order. My first Amendment referred to a Schedule which was an alternative proposal to the present Sub-section.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will move his second Amendment.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out paragraph (c).
This paragraph says
Any other powers and duties in England and Wales of any Government Department which appear to His Majesty to relate to matters affecting or incidental to the health of the people
may be transferred by Order in Council to the Minister. What it means is that if a Minister wants to get any other duties or powers into his own hands or if the Ministry of the day desire the Ministry of Health to have those powers put into its hands, they can carry out that desire by Order in Council. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Sub-section give some definition of what is to be transferred, but nothing could be more vague than paragraph (c). The whole of the procedure by Order in Council has been repeatedly objected to as a part of our public legislation. The House of Commons and Parliament as a whole is coming to the opinion that what Parliament means should be stated definitely in the Acts which are passed with the consent of both Houses, and that powers which are vague, undefined, unlimited, and are of very wide scope in phraseology should not be put into the hands of any Minister without his coming to Parliament. That is
my general and broad objection to the paragraph. I would ask the Government to define what they mean by the paragraph. Is it of any real consequence or is it only a device of the Parliamentary draftsman who has put it in as a safeguarding Clause in case he may have forgotten something in preparing the multitude of measures with which he has been concerned. If it has no meaning, why retain it? If it means anything on which a clear statement can be made, the Government should declare what they mean to the House and put it on the face of the Bill, so that we may all know what it is they intend to do. There is one particular matter in which I have taken some interest: that is the Central Control Board for the Liquor Traffic. That may be regarded by the Law Officers as a Government Department, and it may be transferred to the Minister of Health. The work of that body may be considered as a matter affecting or incidental to the health of the people. I want to know if there is any design of that kind. Would the Government be prepared to accept transfers of this kind under the terms of this particular paragraph? I object entirely to these vague, indefinite powers being exercised at any time by Order in Council, which is a very slight protection. We all know the value of that protection. The House has the greatest difficulty in making use of its powers of objection or even to know what Orders are lying on the Table. It takes an old Parliamentary hand with much diligence and wariness to ascertain what Orders have been lying on the Table. Sometimes the thirty days have elapsed before the House is aware of what is going forward. This provision means something or nothing. If it means nothing, it is not wanted in the Bill. If it means anything, the Government should declare what they mean and substitute for this paragraph a clear declaration of the powers they propose to transfer to the Minister.

Mr. BETTERTON: I beg to second the Amendment. There is nobody in the House who does not give the principle of this Bill the most warm and cordial support, and there is nobody who does not wish that its administration should be smooth and easy. This particular paragraph will invite controversy, promote trouble, and have the very opposite effect to that which is desired. I go further than my hon. Friend who has moved the
Amendment and say that the paragraph as it is drawn is not merely vague, but that it is absolutely impossible to interpret it. My hon. Friend referred to the Liquor Control Board. That will serve as well as any other Department to illustrate what I have in mind. This Sub-section says:
It shall be lawful for His Majesty from time to time by Order in Council to transfer to the Minister—
(c) Any other powers and duties in England and Wales of any Government Department which appear to His Majesty to relate to matters affecting or incidental to the health of the people.
If you look at the Interpretation Clause of the Bill, Sub-section (4) of Clause 11 says:
The expression 'Government Department' includes the Insurance Commissioners, the Welsh Insurance Commissioners, and any other public Department and any Minister of the Crown acting as the head of a Government Department.
Some hon. Members who were in the last Parliament may remember that this is precisely the question which was at issue on the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Bill, 1916. I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 21st August, 1916, that there was a Sub-section in that Bill which began as follows:
The Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) shall also be deemed to be a Government Department.
Therefore, presumably before that Bill was introduced it was not taken to be a Government Department. That particular Sub-section of that Bill was cut out before it became law. The present Solicitor-General, in discussing this matter in the course of the Debate, said:
The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to amend this Clause, and I fully appreciate the way he has endeavoured to meet us. I really do not know what is the meaning of the phrase 'Government Department.' … I hope that on Report in all the passages where we have got the words 'Government Department' we may have Amendments so that we may get some sort of defined and proper phrase which will not give rise to any sort of difficulties which always arise when you use a phrase which is not accurate to express what you mean."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st August, 1916, col. 2404, Vol. 85.]
If the learned Solicitor-General did not know what a Government Department was, it is hardly fair to ask a layman now to explain what "any other public Department" means. It is impossible for anybody to know what is included in that expression. It may or may not include the Liquor Control Board. With a view to suggesting to the Government that it
will materially improve the Bill and help to avoid the doubts and difficulties which undoubtedly will arise, and, indeed, have already arisen, I support the Amendment and ask the Government to cut out these words. On the general question of legislation by Orders in Council, I confess that many of us have come here not merely bound by pledges, but determined by conviction to assist the Government by all the means in our power in these great questions of reconstruction. But at the same time I confess that we view with grave concern this tendency to delegate the powers and responsibilities of the House to Departments and to proceed by Orders in Council. We had the same thing in the Ways and Communications Bill, but Clause 4 of that Bill was cut out. In the Aliens Restrictions Bill we have the evil in an aggravated form. With all respect to the Government, it appears to us that it is their duty to ask this House for such powers as they want specifically, and to put in the Bill what they want. Then we shall know where we are. To attempt to legislate by these Orders in Council is to shirk the responsibilities and duties of this House.

6.0 P.M.

Major ASTOR: The Mover of the Amendment was not quite certain whether this Clause meant something or nothing. I can assure him it very much means something, but it does not mean what apparently he fears or anticipates that it might mean. It does not intend to settle the future of the Liquor Control Board. The House will have to decide at some time whether the Liquor Control Board is to continue and, if so, under what particular Minister it is to continue. The Act specifies that it is to end on a particular day, six or twelve months after the end of the War, and therefore Parliament has to decide the future of the Liquor Control Board, and there is nothing in this Clause which is intended in any way to prejudice or affect the decision. As regards this Sub-section, I am certain that if the Mover and Seconder had been on Committee A upstairs they would have realised that the Sub-section was a very important and necessary part of the Bill. It does not, any more than any other Clause, confer any new powers upon the Government. Under the Bill functions are taken from Departments and put under my right hon. Friend who is going to be the Minister of Health. Those powers and functions are
transferred in three stages. The first stage is set out in Clause 2, where certain functions and powers are transferred at once. Other functions and powers may be transferred in the near future, and there is a third category, those contained in this Sub-section, which may be transferred at some future time. In our opinion the future development and scope of the Ministry of Health would be materially limited if the Sub-section were excluded. For instance, at some time it may be decided that maritime matters connected with the Board of Trade ought to be transferred to the Ministry. We had a very interesting discussion upstairs as to whether industrial health ought to be transferred from the Home Office to the Ministry of Health. If this Amendment were carried we should be precluded from making that transfer if we thought it desirable at some future time. Then there are functions of the Board of Agriculture dealing with milk. If the Amendment were carried the Ministry of Health would be precluded from dealing with important matters such as milk. I could give other instances, but I think I have given enough to show that the Sub-section is really vital and essentian to the successful development and scope of the Ministry of Health. The Mover and Seconder evidently had some doubt as to the use which might be made of Orders in Council. Orders in Council are not popular, because they have been utilised during the War under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, but these particular Orders in Council that we have in mind are of a different character. They are merely administrative machinery. They are not carrying out what we call "D.O.R.A. Regulations" of extensive scope, affecting large sections of the community, nor are they Orders in Council of the nature dealt with, I understand, in the Transport Bill or the Ways and Communications Bill. This is merely an administrative measure. In the Committee my right hon. Friend was anxious not to do anything which would go behind the back of Parliament. He was most anxious to give the House an opportunity of criticising and examining anything which he proposed to do, and, because of that, Clause 8 was amended. I would refer hon. Members to the safeguards contained in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of that Clause. Orders in Council have to be published and to be laid before each
House of Parliament. In the third Subsection are these words, which were put in upstairs to safeguard the rights of Parliament:
The Order shall not take effect until both Houses by Resolution have adopted the same.
That was put in in order, so far as we could carry out the intention of my right hon. Friend, not to go behind the back of Parliament, and to give the House every opportunity of going into and knowing what was to be proposed. I sincerely trust my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment.

Sir D. MACLEAN: While not disagreeing with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, I think it is necessary to make clear that an Order in Council is an Order in Council whether it is in connection with the Transport Bill or an administrative Order under this Bill, and to this extent I sympathise with the two hon. Members who have moved the Amendment. This House should be very careful in these wide and sweeping measures. We should carry in our minds what we are doing, and all that this House or the other place can do in regard to Orders in Council is to accept or reject them. There is no power at all to amend them.

An HON. MEMBER: They can be amended.

Major ASTOR: Sub-section (3) contains the words,
subject to any modifications or adaptations.

Sir D. MACLEAN: In that case my argument is met. I am very glad of that improvement. That shows the value of the work upstairs, and, so far as my observation has gone, I very gladly recognise the excellent work which has been done upstairs, particularly with regard to this Bill. I am quite sure many of the results which have been obtained could not have been obtained downstairs. My hon. Friends, however, are quite right in being very jealous of the powers which we are handing over to a great Government Department.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 4.—(Consultative Councils.)

(1) It shall be lawful for His Majesty by Order in Council to establish consultative councils in England and Wales for giving, in accordance with the provisions of the Order, advice and assistance to the Minister in connection with such matters affecting or incidental to the health of the people as may be referred to in such Order.

(2) Every such council shall include women as well as men, and shall consist of persons having practical experience of the matters referred to the council.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "council," to insert the words
except as specified in Sub-section (3).
Our object is to set up a consultative council composed exclusively of women. I moved a similar Amendment in Committee which was defeated by a small majority, and I hope the House will reverse that decision. The Bill proposes to set up a number of consultative councils to assist in the administration of its provision. They will be on the analogy of other councils already set up—for instance, by the Board of Trade and the Board of Education—and we were given to understand in Committee that there would certainly be three and probably four of these councils. There will be one composed chiefly of members of the medical profession, another representative of local authorities, probably another representative of the insurance interest; and there will be a council of a general nature representative of persons not directly connected with any of the other three interests. It is the desire of many women, and many men I believe as well, that, in addition, there should be a further council composed exclusively of women. I am aware that certain women's organisations do not desire such a council, but no fewer than eighty women's organisations, representing more than 500,000 women, many of them very representative women, both rich and poor, desire the institution of such a council. The objections that the President of the Local Government Board made to the proposal were mainly that it would be of an artificial character and that these councils should be composed both of men and of women, and that none of them should be restricted to one particular sex. I quite agree that on the ground of theoretical equality there is a great deal to be said for that contention, but as a practical measure I am convinced that if you wish to enlist for this Bill the support of the great body of women of the country, it is much better at any rate to start by what at first sight seems an artificial arrangement, and to set up a council exclusively of women.
In the present state of public opinion there are certain questions connected with health which it would be better for women to discuss amongst themselves in
an exclusively women's council. I am quite aware that there are many women who quite rightly do not desire privacy for the discussion of such questions as I have in mind; at the same time I believe that there are also many women who are not doctors or professionally connected with health questions, the sort of women we wish to get interested in this Bill, who would probably in the present state of public opinion prefer to have not a mixed council but a council of women on which they could speak perfectly freely. Even if that opinion is not shared by many Members they will agree with me when I urge that unless a woman's council is set up, women will not really get their full representation in the Ministry of Health Bill. Obviously, with the present position of women there will not be many women doctors on the medical council. There will be very few on the local authorities' council. Probably again there will be few, if any, upon the insurance council. Upon the general council it may be that there will be a certain number, but even so that will leave women, who after all will have a greater influence than anybody else on the success of this measure, with a representation far below that to which their influence and numbers entitle them. On that account I am anxious to require from the very beginning that even though the institution of a special woman's council appears rather artificial, we shall have such a council, and by that means get a larger women's representation in the administration of the measure than in my view we should otherwise have.
I put that forward when I moved the Amendment upstairs. I do so with all the greater assurance now for this reason. In the Committee I and other Members proposed several Amendments for ensuring the safeguarding of women's interests. For instance, an Amendment that the assistant secretary of the Ministry must be a woman. That was opposed by the Government. We proposed another Amendment—that in the appointment of officials to the Ministry of Health no discrimination should be made between men and women. The Government opposed that Amendment, but we carried it against them. I understand that to-day the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is going to ask the House to reverse that decision. The fact that the Government took up that attitude with reference to these various women's Amendments which we moved
upstairs makes me think that it is all the more necessary to insist to-day upon one of these consultative councils being restricted to women. The President of the Local Government Board in Committee upstairs said that no doubt there would be Sub-committees connected with various consultative councils composed of women. That does not meet our contention at all. We desire that women should not have to act through Sub-committees, an organisation which is rather low in the official hierarchy, but should be able to bring direct pressure on the President of the Local Government Board from the top. On that account we are particularly anxious that women should have a woman's council by which they could go direct to the President of the Local Government Board. I am sincerely anxious that the administration of this Act should be from the first a great success, and I am convinced that, if it is to be a great success, we must enlist the support of the great body of women, not only professional women, but mothers of families, ordinary women, without whose support the Bill will not be launched with that chance of success which we all desire.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment of my hon. Friend. Few words of mine are required when following a speech so excellent in form and so sound in argument. A very great and new departure is being made, for which we are all very thankful. In order that this experiment—because it is an experiment—should have the largest possible measure of success, it is necessary to enlist for this service the largest possible amount of public support. One can put the special case of women in regard to this matter in a very few words. As was said excellently by an hon. Friend of mine upstairs, women are the great medical public health officers of the home. The question of health or sickness in the home affects them more directly than it affects men. They are the special guardians of the physical as well as the moral well-being of the future citizens of the country. As far as I can see from the Report of the Committee, my right hon. Friend in charge of the measure stated that there would, at any rate, be sub-committees entirely composed of women, that he might form such a general consultative body as this, but he did not want to be forced to do so. He gave a Government
assurance with regard to certain subcommittees that they would be entirely composed of women. What we want him to do now is to go a step further. He agrees that probably there will be no real harm in it except that to some extent he thinks it might tie his hand. Let him weigh that disadvantage against what we think is the great advantage of a really fine experiment of this kind, of giving women a special consultative position on a matter in which all might reasonably agree that they are predominantly interested.
The argument used upstairs that this might in some way tie his hands does not outweigh what I hope the majority of Members of this House on this occasion will think is the advantage of an experiment well worth trying. It has been said that there are a number of societies who say that they do not want this done. That is always easy to get, but we ought not to be influenced very much by that. Our real concern is with the broad merits of the proposal. On the ground which my hon. Friend so well put forward, and, I may hope, one or two of the suggestions I also made, we urge strongly on the Government that they should give way on this matter. A very strong case has been made for giving women just one representative council. There is no suggestion as to numbers. A very small committee, I think, might be very useful. The whole question of the numbers of the committee and of the class of women upon it should be left entirely to the Minister in charge. All we suggest is that this should be a consultative committee composed entirely of women. By having such a committee you will have the advantage of having the women's point of view expressed in a thorough way by a woman's committee, and if this is opposed it will cause great disappointment. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give way to a strong body of opinion, both inside and outside the House of Commons, and make this experiment, which he himself admitted was really harmless, and the only objection to which is that it might tie his hands a little.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: I happen to have been a member of the Standing Committee, and I have a pretty vivid recollection of what occurred in respect of the Amendment that was there proposed and the exhaustive manner in which it was argued. A majority of the Committee supported the Minister in his attitude against the setting up of several
committees composed entirely of women. We do not want if we can help it to perpetuate class distinction in this great and comprehensive measure as to health, touching as it does so vitally the lives and happiness of our great population In my judgment the strength of the consultative committees will largely lie in those committees being composed of men and women. Whatever may be the views of a certain section of the female population, I am bound to say from some experience of committees, that, generally speaking, women rather look for the guidance and direction of men in their committee work. I have yet to learn that there is any expression throughout the country on the part of women that they shall be differently treated from men. The movement which has been in operation, and which has ended so successfully up to the present in regard to the female population, has been that they should be placed upon equal terms with men, and that where men were there women should be, and that what men can do women can do. I have had some forty years' experience of the great friendly society movement in this country, and during the last five years we have come very much into contact with the Government in relation to national health insurance. In that great movement there are tens of thousands of women, and both in the friendly societies and in the approved societies, they are playing their part in the administration of those societies, and doing so with very great earnestness and with very great success. On none of them has there been any claim to set up separate women's committees, but, on the contrary, they rather welcome the inclusion of men, because in the interchange of views and in association and experience they are often more able to do good work and more successful work than if they were left entirely by themselves. I submit to the House that there has been in no sense any desire on the part of the women of the country to be so separated. I am prepared to admit all that has been said about women as to the part they play in regard to the health of the nation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was quite correct when he spoke of their action in the sick chamber, and all that they do in ministering to health. But if there had been any intense desire on the part of women to be differently treated and segregated and set out in separate terms, then, in my judgment, this House
would have been bombarded with literature and flooded with communications begging Members to take the action which is proposed by the Amendment. I am bound to say that this matter received most careful consideration, and was very fully and freely debated in the Committee, and I sincerely hope that the House will stand by the Clause as it now is and reject the Amendment.

Major ASTOR: It may assist the House, and particularly those who were not members of the Committee, if I set out briefly the proposals of my right hon. Friend in this matter. Before doing so, let me make one general observation. I, like so many hon. Members, find it very difficult to realise when women have in fact come by their own that they are now anxious to introduce the question of sex, since I thought that it was equal rights that were sought and that the question of sex was no longer to come into consideration. I think it would be a step backward instead of forward if we were to take sex as the basis of the composition of the particular council or body, such as we are now discussing. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board is more fully alive than any hon. Member can possibly be to the need of having the support of women, whether experts or lay or whether they live in any other part of the country. As we said in Committee every woman in the home assists to make the administration of the Health Ministry a real success. My right hon. Friend more than anyone else wants to get her assistance, and it is because he wants the assistance of women in the Ministry and outside the Ministry that he proposes to put women on all the consultative councils he is going to set up. There are to be four councils, one an expert medical council, on which there will be women, and one an expert council representing local administrative bodies, and a council representing the insured side of the societies, and a general council representing the general population. And not only will there be women on that, but my right hon. Friend proposes that there shall be a large number, and I am authorised by him to say at least half the members of the general council will be women, and in addition to that there will be women on all the expert bodies.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Will that be set out under Regulation so that it will be carried out consistently?

Major ASTOR: I am explaining my right hon. Friend's policy.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am quite willing to trust the present Minister.

Major ASTOR: In doing so my right hon. Friend shows a spirit which has enabled us to get through so many contentious measures because we trust each other to carry out the policy which we explain and lay before the public. I think there was some misunderstanding on the part of the Mover. He appeared to think that women were diffident about serving on mixed councils, and when he put forward that argument I think he contemplated councils not merely in London but councils on the periphery throughout the country.

Sir S. HOARE: I did not contemplate anything of the kind. I contemplated the Central Consultative Council.

Major ASTOR: It has been my privilege to serve on many committees on which there were women, and I found them of the greatest help. On one particular committee where the women were in the minority they were the most useful members of the committee, and did a great deal to direct and guide the body. Whether the bodies are expert or non-expert, we suggest we should be wrong in taking as the basis for any one council the exclusion of a sex, which is really what is now proposed. It is proposed as the basis for one of these many councils to have the exclusion of the male sex, and I suggest that is a wrong basis. We have adopted as the basis, whether for expert or for non-expert, the general population, which, I think, is the best basis on which to set up these councils, taking the matter on professional grounds, or administrative grounds, or grounds of public policy. We contemplate that there will be sub-committees of the general council. But there are not as many questions as some hon. Members appear to think on which only women are most competent to give advice. If you were asked to name suddenly some of those subjects on which women should be consulted, you might take baby feeding and midwifery, but, on second thoughts, I think hon. Members will realise that even on those specialised questions man's advice and experience would be most useful, and therefore even on those questions it would be unwise to exclude men The proposal is that there should be appointed sub-committees of this general council, and if for
any special purpose women on the councils like to meet together to discuss sex questions facilities will be given to them to do so. We had the fallacious argument advanced about direct access to the Minister. I think it was the Seconder who appeared to think that the President of the Local Government Board or the Minister of Health would really not have a fair opportunity of consulting his women advisers, or that they would not have a reasonable opportunity of consulting him, unless there were direct access through a purely woman's council. I cannot imagine any Minister in the future denying to women advisers the right of coming to him direct. The mere fact that there is a purely woman's council does not mean that he or his successors will not give women advisers the fullest opportunity of assisting. What we want is to get the best people on the council irrespective of sex, and the one condition we make is that both sexes shall be represented. We want both sexes in the Department. My right hon. Friend has already appointed high up in the Department a woman doctor, Dr. Janet Campbell. We shall be adopting a wrong principle if we took for the basis of one of these councils the exclusion of one sex. It has been my good fortune to work with a consultative council on which women, and particularly women representing organised Labour, were largely represented, namely, the Consumers' Council of the Ministry of Food. They were of the greatest assistance to the Food Controller and to the Department generally, and because they were a mixed body and they were able to offer us better and more useful advice. I understand there are representatives of organised Labour here and they will doubtless put the point of view of organised Labour, which I understand is against this sex distinction. No doubt that particular point will be put by the representatives of Labour, but I would suggest this. When we have gone so far in national government to abolish sex distinction it would be unwise to revive sex distinctions, as suggested in the Amendment. We intend to give full representation to both sexes on all these councils and in the Department, and I suggest that we ought to give no preference to one sex to the exclusion and disadvantage of the other in setting up any of these councils. It is because of that that my right hon. Friend cannot accept this Amendment. He is
fully determined to get the assistance of women, and he thinks he can get the assistance to the best advantage on the lines he has in mind.

Mr. THOMAS SHAW: I am glad the Government are resisting this Amendment. When it is proposed to give to one sex an advantage over the other surely a strong case ought to be made out for the granting of a special privilege. We have not, however, been told what this special consultative body of women are to do; in what respect they are going to be superior to a mixed consultative council; what particular questions, so far as health is concerned, are not common to men and women, and why a departure of this kind ought to be made. As to that we are left entirely in the dark. No claim can be made that this Bill is unjust to women. The Clause with which we are dealing, with its Sub-section, definitely provides representation for women on every consultative council, and there is no feeling of antagonism in the Bill towards women as such. I am speaking from my own experience and for myself alone. For the last thirty years I have been connected with a very large organisation, in which men and women work side by side under the same conditions, with the same rights in every respect, and I say that our women have never claimed special sex privileges. They do not desire them, and when they get treatment equal and equivalent to that of men they are perfectly satisfied. So far as my experience goes there is absolutely no suggestion that women, as a whole, desire a privilege of this kind. I ask myself what are the questions in public health which affect women solely, on which women alone can speak and can speak for the rest of the women of this country. I deny that there is any body of women whatever who, speaking for the rest of the women of this country, say that they desire a council composed exclusively of women, whilst the other councils are mixed. I challenge contradiction of that statement. There is no ground for assuming that the vast body of women in this country desire a body of women simply because women alone on public health matters can represent the views of others.
I am totally opposed to the spirit of the Amendment, because I believe the worst thing that can happen to our country is to give even a hint that women's interests cannot be properly attended to except by
them. That is not true. The women do not believe it to be true, and their actions in the election prove that they do not. If women had believed that only women could represent their point of view many of us would not be on these benches and women would be speaking for themselves. I object altogether to sex privilege. I do not want sex privilege to swing from the men to the women, I want fair play. I hope the Minister will keep only one consideration in view in forming his consultative councils, and that is the capacity of the person he appoints to do the work, whether that person be a man or a woman. Surely what we want is the best. If a man can carry it out best, let the man do the job. If a women is better qualified let the woman do the job. But to set up a special council, with undefined duties, with no idea of why it is needed or of what it will discuss, simply because its members will belong to one sex seems to be neither good sense nor good business. Believing, as I do, that women are fairly treated under this Bill, and that to give them what the Amendment proposes is to give them a privilege, and that the vast majority of women do not want special privileges but only equality, I hope that the Government will stick to their ground, and that the Amendment will be defeated.

Captain LOSEBY: I would not intervene in this Debate if I did not think a vital principle were involved. This is an attempt to make women articulate, and although the hon. Gentleman opposite made a quite reasonable, though superficial claim, that this is an attempt to treat women other than on equal terms, I think it is easy to demonstrate that it is not so. As the hon. Gentleman remarked, women are rapidly coming into their own. Inside of twenty years, no doubt, they will come completely into their own, but they have not yet done so. Within a short period of time they will have a complete franchise, but they have not yet got it. It has been pointed out that there will be one medical council in which the men will outnumber the women by thirty to one. There will be the local authorities consultative committee in which women are hardly represented at all, or only very slightly so; and there will be national health committees, in which women are also very much in the minority. I am told that the right hon. Gentleman resisted the demands and requests of women that they should be guaranteed, to compensate their
disadvantages, some definite representation on these councils. That was denied; that claim was strenuously made. In all human probability, unless we are successful in making our point to-night or in impressing upon the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that the women of this country do feel very deeply upon this subject, by the ordinary rule of things, taking representation alone, women will be so hopelessly outnumbered on these consultative committees—three at any rate—that they will not be articulate. My hon. Friend has stated that the right hon. Gentleman responsible for this Bill is going to allow women representation to the extent of one half upon the general council. Does that satisfy their just demands? I say that reasonably they may expect to be outnumbered by four to one on three out of the four, and on the fourth they are to have a half.
I am directly instructed by the constituency which I represent to support this particular Amendment. The idea that this women's consultative council would give women direct access to the Ministry has been laughed at and scouted, but it is a very serious and genuine point. I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman can admit anybody and everybody to speak to him, at any rate, with any kind of authority, unless, as in this particular case, that person could go and say, "I am the chairman of a particular consultative body." I have very great fears that the women of this country will realise, not only that their claims have been resisted, but that they will be unable to make themselves articulate upon this one great question, on which they undoubtedly do feel so strongly. Let me just give one instance which, I think, prompted the people of my Constituency to vote for a woman's consultative committee. Municipal houses were put up in a certain town near the one which I represent. In no single one of these municipal houses was there a copper. I am told that that is a very serious and vital point so far as women are concerned, and at any rate it is the kind of thing that makes them think that they ought themselves to have a say in certain matters. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who has left the Committee, as he left it on a preceding occasion when I ventured to oppose this Bill, will realise that the women of this
country feel very seriously upon this particular question, and I hope he will be able to meet them in this respect.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions as to Wales.)

The Minister shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, appoint such officers as he may think fit to constitute a Board of Health in Wales through whom he may exercise and perform in Wales in such manner as he may think fit any of his powers and duties; the Board and any officer who is a member thereof shall act under the directions, and comply with the instructions, of the Minister.

Mr. SEDDON: I beg to move to leave out Clause 5.
7.0 P.M.
I realise that this Amendment is of very great importance and raises vital issues and I would not have undertaken to raise it but for interviews I have had with Welsh people. The Amendment seeks to exclude Wales from the operations of the Bill. It may be said that there are many Welsh Members who can speak for the Principality. I am not assuming that they are not able to do that, nor am I speaking or moving this Amendment because I recognise that the great champion of Wales, the Prime Minister is absent; but I am doing it as a representative in this Chamber who has been appealed to by a very large section of the Welsh electorate and of the Welsh people who feel that under the provisions of this Bill they are being very unjustly treated. It may be said, and probably will be said, that the arguments I am about to advance have been engineered. I will say, in passing, that, if that be correct, then it is very successfully engineered, because, during the last few days there have been representative gatherings in Wales. The National Free Church Council at Shrewsbury passed a resolution condemning the attitude of the Minister towards Wales, and the mover of the resolution happened to be the brother of the Prime Minister, who spoke evidently for the great Nonconformist bodies of Wales. That resolution condemning the Clause as it affected Wales was carried unanimously. Then I find that the Welsh Churches representing South Wales and Monmouth—no small part of the Principality, also passed condemnatory resolutions. In addition, I find the National Council, representing the Welsh educational committees, at a meeting in Cardiff, also passed condemnatory resolutions.
I may be told that the Minister has entered into a bargain with the represen-
tatives from Wales, but I deny the right of any party to enter into a bargain with a Minister until they are fully confident that that bargain meets the wishes and aspirations of the people on whose behalf it is made. It has been said, and I take no exception to it, that the Minister in charge has made certain promises in regard to Wales. He has said that this raises a constitutional issue, and that in this Bill you cannot do what the Welsh people require, and that is to have an Under-Secretary who shall be established in Wales to administer this Act in the interests of the whole Principality. Whatever may be the promise made by the Minister—and I am not impunging his honour for a moment, because I believe he is not only honourable but very amiable, and fully intends to carry out the promise he has made—I have lived long enough to find out that Governments come and Governments go, and Ministers may make pledges, but unless those pledges have been crystalised in Acts of Parliament other Ministers who follow very often forget the pledges made by their predecessors. Therefore, I want to point out that in Wales there is very deep resentment at the preferential treatment that has been given to Scotland and Ireland. During the last five years I think I am right in saying that there has been a great revival of Welsh national sentiment. That sentiment has been encouraged by Government Departments themselves. In the early days of the War those responsible for the military guidance of the country saw the necessity of appealing to the Welsh people for Welsh regiments and Welsh commanders, and I think no one will doubt for a moment that that action on the part of the military authorities resulted in some of the finest regiments that have ever been created, and composed entirely of Welshmen.
That sentiment has been growing. But what do we find? Yesterday the same principle was being discussed in a Scottish Committee, and the Minister representing the Government at that Committee undertook to recommend the appointment of a Secretary so far as Scotland is concerned. If Scotland can be given this preferential treatment, then the same ought to be done so far as Wales is concerned. If I understand the Clause aright, not only is Wales to be treated different than Scotland or Ireland, but many of her present privileges are to be taken away. I have been told that the
two Secretaries to be appointed will have certain powers to delegate certain responsibilities to committees in Wales. I do not know how far privileges or rights will be conceded to the committees in Wales, but I conceive endless troubles if you get an autocratic Under-Secretary—and such have not been unknown, and there have been autocratic Ministers. If something is not done for Wales to put Wales in the same position as Scotland and Ireland, she will have some humiliating experiences in the not very distant future.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I thought the hon. Member's Amendment was to exclude. Wales altogether—to delete Clause 5. Now he is asking for a Minister. I do not know whether he is in order or not. That is a matter for the Welsh people.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is open to the hon. Member to state the reasons for his Amendment. I understand he wishes to exclude this Clause, with a view to subsequently bringing in some further Amendment to deal with the case of Wales.

Mr. SEDDON: I was proceeding along those lines. I do not think it is contrary to the Rules of this House to give reasons for an Amendment. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make great concessions to remove from the minds of the Welsh people the sense of wrong and injustice, I believe that in the very near future they will be in a very humiliating position. London will be the centre instead of Wales. I may be stretching my imagination, but it appears to me that under an autocratic Under-Secretary even the purchase of floorcloths and scrubbing brushes, or anything that was required, would have to be applied for to the Minister sitting in London. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, because of the sentiment which has been expressed to me, to deal with this matter, and I claim an equal right with my hon. Friends to speak for Wales so long as Wales has its laws administered and enacted in this House, and I speak for the Welsh people, who have appealed to me to present their case. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to relieve this growing resentment in the Principality and to give a definite assurance that if there is no power under this Bill to meet the case that he will use his powerful support towards giving to Wales, by another Bill, that for which they ask, so that it will remove from the minds of the Welsh people the sense of
injustice, and Wales may have the same treatment as is extended to Scotland and Ireland under this Bill.

Mr. MORRIS: I beg to second the Amendment. In so doing, I address the House for the first time and claim the indulgence that the House usually accords to new Members. It may be asked why I, a London Member, should undertake to champion the cause of the Principality. My reply is, that the issue involved is a question whether the nations which compose this Kingdom shall be governed on a bureaucratic or a democratic basis, and that is a question upon which every hon. Member is entitled to speak. I claim that right equally as an English Member and as a native of the Principality. In the second place, I have consulted a good many of my Constituents on this question and I have their hearty support in the course I am taking. In the third place, very numerous representations have been made to me, some of which have been detailed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon). There is a deep feeling of resentment in Wales that the Welsh Members do not in this matter represent the national opinion in Wales, but that, on the contrary, they are surrendering the sacred rights which Welsh Nationalists of a former day and of a more courageous type fought hard and most successfully in this House and in the country to establish, as they thought once for all. I am anxious that the issue in this matter should not be obscured by non-vital details and side issues. I therefore ask for the patient attention of the House while I appeal to it not to allow the right of self-government in domestic affairs which Wales has enjoyed for years in so many other matters to be filched from her in this vital matter of public health.
I put my case in the form of five propositions, and I hope that when the House has heard the facts they will agree that the case for separate treatment for Wales is not only convincing but overwhelming. I submit these five points in the following form: First, that this House ever since the year 1880, when it passed the Welsh Sunday. Closing Act, has successively recognised, in matters of religion, education, and local government, the right of Wales to manage in her own way, through her own representatives, her own domestic affairs. Secondly, that with the
long accumulation of Parliamentary precedents, Parliament cannot now stultify itself by abandoning the principle of national self-government and substituting for this great British method of government the hateful Prussian method of government by bureaucratic departments of central officials. My third point is this, that apart from these weighty Parliamentary precedents, every new power this House has given to Wales to manage her own affairs according to Welsh feeling has been made excellent use of and that the great strides Wales has made in the last quarter of a century, in education and in social and administrative reform, are directly due to the healthy and vigorous public spirit which those responsibilities have developed. My fourth proposition is that under the principle of self-determination, of which we have heard so much of late in connection with Alsace-Lorraine and other races suppressed under alien rule, Wales is entitled to organise her own domestic and national affairs as the Welsh people think best for themselves, and that, as the resolutions of representative Welsh bodies that have already been submitted to the House clearly show, the Welsh people in this matter demand the right to make their own provision for the betterment of the public health. Fifthly, Clause 5 of this Bill wipes out this long-established right on the part of the Welsh people, declares in effect that there is no such thing as a responsible Welsh nation capable of ordering its own life, and reduces the sham Welsh authority to be set up and all its officials to the level of puppets under the absolute control of a supreme official in Whitehall, who may be utterly ignorant of the special needs and characteristics of the Welsh people, and to such a retrograde and reactionary proposal every believer in the liberty of little nations is bound to offer the most vigorous resistance.
Let me give the House some facts and reasons in support of the five points I have mentioned. The Welsh Sunday Closing Act was a measure passed by a Liberal Government under Mr. Gladstone. It was strenuously fought on the ground that it separated England from Wales and introduced piecemeal legislation, but to-day what responsible Minister would think of repealing an enactment which has proved of immense social good in Wales, which in its promotion of sobriety has a close bearing on the question of public health, and
which has demonstrated that in many respects Welsh opinion is not only different from that of England but in advance of it? The second precedent of which I will remind the House relates to Welsh education—the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889, passed, it may be well to remember, by a Conservative Government. Up to that point, with the exception of a few odd endowed grammar schools, Wales was destitute of any provision for linking up the elementary schools with the new university colleges, and the Government of that day had the wisdom to leave Wales liberty to devise its own system to suit its own needs, and the result was the establishment in a few years of a network of new intermediate schools, the success of which was rightly described by eminent educationists who investigated the system as one of the romances of education. Not only has that experiment opened out new avenues and new vocations to the youth of Wales, who would otherwise have remained isolated in their native valleys, but it has demonstrated beyond all doubt the ability of the Welsh people to do for themselves, when given the chance, what the bureaucrat in Whitehall could not possibly do for them. What is true of secondary education in Wales is also true of higher education. Wales did not wait for a bureaucracy in Whitehall to provide university colleges. It provided them itself, largely out of the pence and three-penny-bits of the common people, and now it has its National University, with three constituents, at Aberystwyth, Bangor, and Cardiff, granting its own degrees in divinity, arts, sciences, and other subjects. The ability to create and successfully administer a national education system on new lines is a severe test of a nation's capacity for self-government, and I fearlessly challenge anyone to say that Wales in this vital matter of education has not vindicated her right to be entrusted with powers of self-government, beyond all doubt and beyond all question. Now let me take another equally searching test of a nation's fitness for self-government, its provision for its religious needs.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are now discussing only a matter of health. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a general Home Rule speech in favour of the Amendment, but should confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. MORRIS: I was endeavouring to show how, if the President of the Local Government Board had only the wisdom of his predecessors to trust Wales in this matter of the public health, it would not only result to the advantage of the Welsh people but to the real object which I know he has in view. If the House will bear with me I will give just one other point. Welsh opinion, as I have said, is in many respects not only different from, but is in advance of, English opinion, and I will show that this is true of Welsh opinion respecting the public health. When King Edward VII. died, and it was proposed to raise a national memorial to the King, who was the first Chancellor of the University of Wales, what form did the Welsh memorial take? It took the form of a campaign for the eradication of consumption from the land. It did not wait for Whitehall to suggest the idea, or to frame a scheme, or to raise the funds. It conceived the idea itself, it constructed its own organisation, and it raised a great endowment fund before anyone in Whitehall had given a moment's thought to the health of the Welsh people, and yet a nation which forestalled the State in its concern for the public health, which constituted a Ministry of Health for itself before any national Ministry of Health was thought of, is now to be stripped of all authority, and to be told by a Minister in Whitehall exactly what it must do and exactly what it must not do. I venture to describe Clause 5 as humiliating to the Welsh nation—a deeper and more open humiliation than any Government, Liberal or Conservative, has dared to suggest for at least a generation, and if you think that an overstatement let me read the words of the Clause itself:
The Minister shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, appoint such officers as he may think fit to constitute a Board of Health in Wales through whom he may exercise and perform in Wales in such manner as he may think fit any of his powers and duties; the Board and any officer who is a member thereof shall act under the directions, and comply with the instructions oil the Minister.
I call that bureaucracy, and I call it more than that. It is personal autocracy as absolutely as that of any Czar or Kaiser. No self-respecting National Board worth the name would for a moment accept such a position. It would be merely a sham, a puppet, a servant, instead of a mistress in its own house. I remember how, when the Education Bill of 1902 was passed, the Prime Minister led the Welsh nation in
revolt against the attempt to override Welsh educational opinion. I wish he were free from the onerous duties he is so nobly discharging to lead a new revolt against this degrading proposal. I have gone into this matter at some length, because it is a vital issue to the Welsh people, to their pride and self-respect as a nation, and to the efficiency and vigour of their public life. This Clause wipes out Welsh nationality. If it is adopted there will be no reality in the term "a Welsh nation." It ignores all the Parliamentary precedents of a generation, it ignores the splendid uses to which Wales has turned every grant of self-governing powers made to her, it reverses all modern Welsh history, it is an insult to the memory of the great Welsh nationalists of the past, and it is an indignity which no nation worth the name would meekly submit to. On all these grounds. I make a confident appeal in support of the principle of a separate treatment for Wales, similar to the powers which are to be given to Scotland, which is in accord with the established policy of this House on questions of Welsh national interest. It is supported equally by precedent and experience, over a long period, and it has behind it the great body of Welsh nationalist opinion and sentiment in Wales.

Mr. GOULD: I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the contentions of Wales might be very easily and readily met if he described the functions which he is going to give to the Board. As the Clause reads at the present time, the Minister may delegate to a Board of Health in Wales such powers and duties as the may think fit. I submit that much of the misunderstanding and disagreement with the Bill as it stands is due to the fact that the duties and powers of the Board are not described. It is contended by many Welsh people to-day, that certain statutory powers under the Insurance Act and other Acts give them a certain amount of discretion in carrying on the duties of their office, and that these are being taken away from them and vested in the Ministry of Health. I submit most respectfully that they have not got the same amount of discretion under this Bill as they had under the old Insurance Act. If it is clearly put into the Bill that we are to take over the functions of the Insurance Commissioners, and the functions which
are permitted under the Midwives Act, and so on, I think the difficulty would be very largely met.
The whole question as to the definition of the power and authority which the Minister is going to delegate to the Welsh Board of Health, Is the Welsh Board of Health going to be a body subject to the whim of any Minister? However good the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman may be, we have no guarantee that in the future the same good intentions will be exercised towards the Welsh Board of Health, whose powers may be taken away at any time at the pleasure and will of any Minister. Only to-day the Ministry of Pensions have agreed that they will completely disintegrate the Department as it is to-day, and that they will give to Wales a director and a medical board which will be absolutely supreme. I submit that if it can be done in the case of one Department without effecting constitutional changes it can be done in another. If the Department had brought forward a proposal to establish a separate Board in Wales with statutory powers, I suggest that the difficulties which now hamper the Bill would very speedily be overcome. I cannot support the proposal for the deletion of Clause 5 altogether because I should not like to see Wales at least without some semblance of provision in the Bill, but I do feel that what has been so ably said by the two preceding hon. Members to a large extent does represent the public feeling in Wales, which is very strong with regard to the provisions of this Bill. It is all very well for Members who belong to the Welsh party—of which I happen to be one—to suggest this has been engineered by one particular individual. It has not. It is very largely representative of an agitation which has gone through Wales and is affecting people's minds very considerably. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see if he cannot define with some degree of exactness and fairness the powers he gives to Wales, so that Wales will feel she is placed in some degree on an equality with Ireland and Scotland.

Dr. ADDISON: I am sure the House of Commons will be asking themselves what crime I have committed in Committee upstairs. I think the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Morris) might in justice compare the proposals in this Bill with the present position, and then he would find that, instead of taking away from Wales powers she already has, and setting
up some monstrous bureaucracy that is going to do all kinds of tyrannical things, as a matter of fact, we are giving to Wales vastly more power than she has got now.

Mr. SEDDON: Are we giving her as much as Scotland?

Dr. ADDISON: No, we are not, and for this reason: It has been said many times that we want to create a system of national Paliaments in the United Kingdom, and, personally, I believe that that is the only efficient way of dealing with the government of the United Kingdom at present. But when we want to do that in the House of Commons we shall do it by calling it the setting up of national Parliaments, and not calling it health. You cannot alter the constitutional government of the United Kingdom and call it health. It is not health; it is a system of government you are altering. Therefore, it was not in my power, in dealing with health matters, to alter the system of govvernment prevailing in the United Kingdom. Whatever may be my personal views as to devolution or not, devolution is not health; it is devolution. And, really, it is asking me to do something which is not within the scope of the Bill at all when I am asked to alter the form of government in the United Kingdom. The reason Scotland has a separate Bill, the reason that the business of Scotland is dealt with by the Secretary for Scotland, is because there is a Secretary for Scotland. It is because there is a Scottish Local Government Board, and there does not happen to be a Welsh Local Government Board The position at the moment is that the office which I hold is that of President of the Local Government Board for England and Wales. It may be very extraordinary, but it is so, and I cannot alter that under the guise of health. The reason Scotland and Ireland are dealt with differently is because they have a machinery of their own, and we therefore call upon that machinery to do certain work. In respect of Wales, however, it so happens that now these duties fall upon the President of the Local Government Board or the chairman of the National Health Insurance Commission.
What is the autonomy possessed by Wales now in these matters? The hon. Member said I took away some powers from Wales, I insulted the nation, and did various other things. As a matter of fact, Wales has not got any autonomy in these
matters now. There is no autonomy in England separate from Wales or in Wales separate from England. The Commission for National Insurance has a separate office in Wales, but the Welsh Insurance Commission is still under the British Treasury, and is responsible to the chairman of the Joint Committee, just in the same way as the English Insurance Committee. Whatever autonomy that body possesses in Wales, they will retain. They are simply transferred to the Minister of Health, instead of remaining attached to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. There is no diminution of autonomy, but there is a great amalgamation. Up to the moment the Welsh Insurance Commission is the only separate organisation qua health that there is. We are not taking away powers, but we are adding to them by this proposal a great many more, and really I cannot understand what crime it is I have committed. We are saying, not only shall you have a separate body in Wales, but, instead of limiting that body to its existing powers, namely, matters relating to insurance, it is given the whole scope of the duties and functions of the Ministry, so that it will be made infinitely wider than it is now. I have discussed this at great length in Committee and with Welsh Members, and I believe that, with the exception of the two or three Members who have spoken, I may say I have got their support. We did everything we could to meet their case within the constitutional form of the government of the country, and there is no diminution of national responsibility or national power. There is an immense addition, and I am sorry to say that in the papers which have come to me—for what reason I know not—this kind of thing has been the subject of the grossest form of misrepresentation I have ever come across. It has been represented as if we were taking something away from Wales, instead of which we have added an immense lot to what there is already. It is absolutely contrary to the facts of the Bill. I have received representations from people anxious to sustain Welsh nationality which have no relation whatever to the proposal before the House, and I sincerely hope the House will not ask us to depart from the Bill.

Mr. RICHARDS: May I say how grateful I am for this Welsh invasion by English Members—the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon) and the hon. Mem-
ber for Battersea (Mr. Morris)? I do not know whether it was within their knowledge that there were Welsh Members in this House or not when they moved this Motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Hanley may be excused, perhaps, because after his week-end visit to Wales I can understand his enthusiasm in coming to the House to say that we ought to have very much more extended powers than we have. But they show their desire in a very peculiar way by trying to take from us the little powers we have under this Bill. I want to say, on behalf of the Welsh Members in all parts of the House, that we welcome everything that has been said by the two hon. Gentlemen in support of autonomy for Wales, and I hope that, after this Bill has become law, the enthusiasm that has been displayed in quarters referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, by those who have passed resolutions misdescribing and misinterpreting what has really taken place and the powers under this Bill—resolutions largely initiated by vested interests, who think their little corner of the vineyard is being threatened in some shape or form—I hope the enthusiasm they have displayed, whether actuated by vested interests or not, will continue to be displayed from true national motives. Wales for many years has felt that she can manage very many of the affairs that are being managed in Whitehall, very much more efficiently both for the nation and for Wales itself, and I am hoping the time is not far distant when such extended powers will become possible of discussion in this House. We as Welsh Members were enthusiastic about securing in this Bill the great constitutional change to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, but we were soon convinced that that was impossible, and we accepted the next best thing. There are certain powers in this Bill which, with intelligent and enthusiastic service and attention will, I am sure, do great things for Wales under the limited powers already given. I have no hesitation in saying that, notwithstanding the protests which have been received from Wales, all that can be secured under the present has been secured, and it is a large measure of extended powers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 6.—(Staff and Remuneration.)

(1) The Minister may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine:
Provided that, in the making of any such appointments, no discrimination be made for reasons of sex between men and women.

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move to leave out the words
Provided that, in the making of any such appointments, no discrimination be made for reasons of sex between men and women.
These words were added to the first Subsection of Clause 6 in Committee upstairs by a majority of four. I should like to impress upon the House why I am moving their omission. It is not from any desire to emphasise any possible difference between men and women as such, but because I believe the words, as they stand now, can only cause confusion, and would not have the slightest effect in bringing about what I believe was in the mind of the Mover of this Amendment in Committee. May I call the attention of the House to the first sentence in the first Sub-section:
(1) The Minister may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may, subject to the consent of the Treasury, as to number, determine.
Then follow the words which I propose to ask the House to omit. If my recollection serves me aright, the President of the Local Government Board many times in the course of the Debates showed his willingness, and more than willingness, to appoint to such new posts as were in his gift—and I wish to emphasise this point—the best person for that post, whether that person was a man or a woman. That is the first point I would make, though it is one I do not wish to labour, because it was developed very ably by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. If the words I propose to omit remain it will take away from the President of the Local Government Board that option, and he will be bound to give the office to the person with the best qualifications. That is to say, the men and women applying for certain posts would be lumped together as though they were sexless and their qualifications alone would be looked at. The result of that might easily be that in some positions where the President of the Local Government Board was anxious to appoint a woman he would be unable to do so, and the reverse might happen.
The point I wish to bring before the House this evening is one which was not touched upon upstairs. I feel quite sure
if it had been made quite plain those who voted for the Amendment might have modified their views. You will have the bulk of the officers and servants in the new Department. These will consist of the clerical staff, from the highest posts to the lowest, and the staff under them, the messengers, charwomen, and coal porters. We need not, I suppose, trouble about the lowest grades, because there is no doubt in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred a man will be chosen for the coal portership, a woman as a cleaner, and a man as messenger. Let us consider for a moment the position of the bulk of the officers, that is the clerical staff of all grades. I want to remind the House what is the position to-day. The Civil Service Commission, which conducts the examinations for entering the Civil Service, conducts them as they have been conducted for many years, with a discrimination in favour of men. The whole of the terms upon which they conduct their examinations, therefore, as between men and women, as regards age of entry, examination tests, terms of service in regard to marriage and emoluments, terms of pension, and sometimes of hours come in. I know quite well from having read the Debates which took place upstairs that it was in the minds of the Movers of the Amendment that if they got these words inserted it would lead to a substantial addition of the women to these places in the Ministry. The words would not have the slightest effect in that direction. For this reason: the Civil Service Commissioners supply the candidates for all these posts according to the demand of the Minister. He wants, say, half-a-dozen second division clerks. The Civil Service Commissioners will supply all they have in the grade, and they will be men.
We all know that during the War a large number of women have entered the Civil Service. The position of women in the Civil Service to-day, if I may use this expression, is de facto greater and stronger than it is de jure. This very point, however, is at this moment under examination by a very strong Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Gladstone. This Committee is investigating the whole question of the employment of women in the Civil Service. Before very long, I hope, they will be in a position to report. When that Report is made there is no doubt the Government will be guided by it, and if changes are found to be desirable those changes will be made throughout the
whole of the Civil Service. Briefly, the reason why I ask the House to omit these words from the Bill is because you are prejudging the issue which is at this moment being debated and is to be reported upon. You are going to put into the Bill the words for one Ministry alone. The words do not apply to any Government Offices at all. They are words which will be completely nugatory so far as giving effect is concerned to what I believe to be the desire of the Mover of these words upstairs. In view of the time that may come when changes are made in the whole of the Civil Service, you will be actually prejudicing the case which you have at heart by tying the hands of the Minister in regard to these appointments. At present he has a free hand to make a choice from either men or women. For these reasons I ask the House to reject these words.

Mr. G. THORNE: I have apparently some little interest in these words, because I moved them upstairs, and they were there carried by a majority. Under the circumstances, therefore, I very much regret it has been necessary to move their recision. I was strongly in favour of the Amendment which was before the House a short time ago; I supported it in Committee. It went to a Division, and we were beaten; consequently, on this Report stage, I urged my hon. Friend not to go to a Division again, simply because the matter had been carefully considered upstairs, and a decision had been come to adverse to our views. Now here we have just got the converse case. This matter was very carefully and fully considered upstairs. We went to a Division, which was in our favour; and it does seem to me a little bit unfair that at this juncture the Government should come and ask for the recision of these words. It is strange that this should not come from my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. I should have thought, as this was his Bill, and as he is watching the interests of the Health Department, that if these words were unsatisfactory he himself would be the medium of the Government in moving their recision, instead of this coming from the Treasury.
The Committee upstairs, in the interests of health. and considering a Health Bill, having by a majority put these words in, it is only fair that they should be allowed to remain, and should not be excised by those who cannot give the same considera-
tion to the question as was given to it by Members exclusively considering this subject upstairs. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said in urging his Amendment. I am bound to own that I cannot understand why his objection has been raised. We only ask that there shall be no discrimination shown, that in the appointments there shall be equality between men and women; that no preference shall be given to the one sex over the other sex. As to what the effect may be on the numbers relatively appointed, of course I cannot for a moment say; but all those who have urged this, and urged it very strongly upon the Committee, have urged it with the view that no discrimination between the sexes should be shown. This comes at the strong instance of women's associations in the country. I have had opportunities of learning that they were exceedingly pleased that these words were put into the Bill. I am sure they will be very gravely disappointed if at this stage they are removed. I earnestly appeal to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, who is in charge of the Bill, that, as he was present when the discussion took place upstairs, and heard the arguments of both sides, and in view of the fact that the Division was in our favour, that he will not press the Amendment, but will grant us down here what by the Division upstairs we carried.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Provisions as to Orders in Council.)

(3) In the case of an Order providing for any transfers of powers or duties to or from the Minister under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 3 of this Act, the Order shall not take effect until both Houses by Resolution have adopted the same, and shall take effect subject to any modifications and adaptations which may be agreed to by both Houses, and in the case of any other Order, if either House before the expiration of such thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft, or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "of" ["of an Order"] insert the words "a draft of."

Leave out the words "take effect" ["Order shall not take effect"] and insert instead thereof the words "be made."

Leave out the words.
adopted the same, and shall take effect
and insert instead thereof the words,
approved the draft, or except.

After the word "of" ["in the case of"] insert the words "a draft of."

After the word "Order" ["in the case of any other Order"] insert the words
which is required to be laid as aforesaid."—[Dr. Addison.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Application to Ireland.)

(1) For the purpose of promoting the health of the people in Ireland and exercising the powers conferred on him by this Act the Chief Secretary shall be the Minister of Health for Ireland, and it shall be his duty as such Minister to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the effective carrying out and co-ordination of measures conducive to health, including measures for the prevention and cure of diseases, the treatment of physical and mental defects, the initiation and direction of research, the collection, preparation, and publication of information and statistics relating thereto, and the training of persons for health services.

(3) The Chief Secretary shall from time to time nominate the persons who are to be members of the Irish Public Health Council under paragraphs (d)and (e) of the preceding subsection.

8.0 P.M.

Major O'NEILL: I beg to move, to leave out Clause 10. I do not do so on the merits of the case, but simply because the Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury wishes to have an opportunity to make a statement with regard to the National Insurance Commission in Ireland.

Sir EDGAR JONES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BALDWIN: The position of the Irish National Insurance Commissioners is rather different from the Commissioners in Great Britain, because their duties as a Commission are continued under this Bill. They have put a very strong case to me, showing that they were appointed for a short time originally, and have continued in office year by year. I was so satisfied by what they said of the difficulty of them continuing to be able to give their best work in Ireland unless some greater security of tenure was afforded that I communicated with the Chief Secretary and suggested to him that we should place the male members of the Commission on the permanent establishment. With regard to Mrs. Dickie, the one lady member, as it was impossible, owing to the regulations which precluded married women
from that privilege, it has been decided that she should be granted a term of some length. I also communicated with the Chief Secretary that I should be glad to consider, if this were done, making the term of these established officers pensionable. I received a message from the Chief Secretary agreeing with my suggestion, and I think this will relieve a very natural apprehension that was felt by the Irish Members about the position of the members of the Irish Commission. I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of making this announcement.

Major O'NEILL: I should like to ask, with regard to Mrs. Dickie, if the hon. Gentleman can state what period of time he proposes to adopt in her case, with regard to being placed upon a permanent basis, otherwise it seems unsatisfactory that the only woman member of the Irish National Commissioners should be placed possibly in a worse position than the others. Curiously enough this announcement bears very closely upon the last Amendment, namely, the deletion of the words in the last Clause. It appears that so far as married women are concerned they are under some special disability in the Civil Service, which affects Mrs. Dickie possibly adversely. This House has been reverberating during the last few days with expressions of opinion as to the competence of women in every sphere and the desire that women should be placed on an equality with men. If this disability exists in the Civil Service now, I hope it will not be allowed to operate to the detriment of the woman, as in this particular case, who has served in the Civil Service for seventeen years, a woman of the greatest ability, who is doing the most excellent work as one of the National Health Commissioners. I suggest that this cannot be dealt with in the present Bill, but it is only right that this disability under which a woman suffers should not be allowed to exist. I hope the hon. Gentleman will say for what period of time he intends to establish Mrs. Dickie's position. I thank him on behalf of Irish Members who take an interest in this matter for the very generous way in which he has met us.

Mr. BALDWIN: All I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend this evening is that the words I used in communicating with the Chief Secretary were that it should be for a definite and a fairly long time.

Major O'NEILL: Will that mean that Mrs. Dickie will not be put upon any less definite basis than the male members of the Commission?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think so.

Major O'NEILL: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "and" ["and publication"].

After the word "publication," insert the words "and dissemination."

In Sub-section (3), at the end, insert the words "including the Chairman."—[Dr. Addison.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Short Title, Commencement, and Repeal, and Interpretation.)

(1) This Act may be cited as the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, and shall come into operation upon such day or days as may be appointed by Order in Council, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and provisions of this Act:
Provided that the latest day for the transfer of powers to the Minister under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of this Act shall not be later than one year after the passing of this Act:
Provided that the day appointed for the transfer of the powers of the Minister of Pensions shall not be earlier than one year after the termination of the present War.

Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "year" ["shall not be earlier than one year"], to insert the words
or not later than three years.
I move this Amendment to carry out an understanding arrived at by which I promised to insert these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be now read the third time.

Mr. THOMAS: I want first of all to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the successful way in which he has piloted this Bill through. Those who were associated with the early stages of this measure know that it is not only now that the right hon. Gentleman has worked hard, but for very many months, and almost years, he has been plodding away endeavouring to get something like agreement on this all-important question, and if any evidence were needed as to the changed spirit it is to be found not only in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague, the Under-Secretary, have met
the opponents and supporters of this Bill, but the magnificent spirit they have displayed in such an important matter. That is evidenced not only in this House, but, what is far more important, in the change that has already been brought about in that particular Department.
Many of us would have despaired for any success in regard to this Bill under the old regime of the Local Government Board. I want to take this opportunity of saying that those of us responsible for the negotiations on this Bill had a very clear and definite assurance that so far as Clause 3 is concerned it was not intended as camouflage. The trade unions and friendly societies were only brought to consider this Bill on the distinct understanding—in fact, it was a promise made by the Prime Minister—that effect would be given to what is is called the reform of the Poor Law. The feeling of the friendly society and trade union members is that these matters of insurance ought not to be associated with or affected by any Poor Law taint. They understand that the Government not only pledge themselves, but, if any attempt is made in another place to interfere with these words and this promise, that they will resist it. I hope that no attempt will be made, because the present state of things is such that we ought to feel that if the Government make a promise the Government intend to give effect to that promise. Nothing can be worse than to have charges of breach of faith hurled at the Government. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to say here and now that he agrees that we were promised definitely and clearly that effect would be given to what is called the Maclean Report, that an early attempt would be made to reform the Poor Law, and that the Government intend the words in Clause 3 as definitely committing them to a policy. Speaking on behalf not only of my own party, but, I believe, of all sections of the House, I hope that he will give that assurance. I can only repeat our congratulations to both Ministers for their success in this very big Bill. We hope that this is the first step towards creating that new England that all of us have been talking about for a very long time.

Dr. ADDISON: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend and I are indebted to my right hon. Friend very deeply for what he has said with regard to this
Bill and our share of work in connection with it. As he well knows, it had been the subject of long, and anxious, and difficult conferences before it came into Parliament at all. It is just as much a source of satisfaction to him, I am sure, as it is to us that it has now reached the last stage. Our success in dealing with the Labour organisations was in no small measure due to his constant and loyal assistance. The pledge which the Government gave was a deliberate pledge, given by the Cabinet after mature consideration, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was embodied in Clause 3 of the Bill. The Government made that pledge deliberately after the most careful consideration of the issues involved. They stand by it, and the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends need have no misgiving, so long as we retain the confidence of the House, that we have any intention of retreating from a position which we have taken up on a most important matter of public policy, and which we have gone out of our way to embody in this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): I beg to move
That the Bill be now read a second time.
This is a Bill for the protection of the police and magistracy of Ireland. As far back as 1836 provision was made for compensation to be paid to officers and men of the police or other persons or their representatives if in the discharge of their duty they were injured in bringing persons to justice. The provisions extended to cases where persons were either murdered or maimed previous to the trial of any person against whom they had laid information, or were prepared to give evidence, or, if a trial had taken place, where they had been maimed, injured, or assassinated on account of their having given such evidence. Those provisions continue up to the present time, but a very narrow construction was given some years ago to the effect of that particular Statute of 1836, and it was decided by the Court of Appeal that unless it were proved that the assassination or maiming had
taken place on account of the particular exertions of the individual to bring the person to trial, he or his representatives would not be entitled to compensation.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order 10, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

RUSSIA.

BOLSHEVIK GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION).

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to move
That this House do now adjourn.
The House will appreciate what I am going to say when I state that it has been with the utmost reluctance that I and those associated with me have taken the step of moving the Adjournment of the House to call attention to something which is alleged to be taking place at the Peace Conference. We recognise the tremendous difficulty that lies before our representatives in the great and delicate negotiations of the Peace Conference, and we should not have thought of saying anything during the discussions which are taking place there if we had not been more than alarmed by messages that have come to us. Last week when we saw in the Press a statement to the effect that certain emissaries from the Bolshevik Government of Russia had arrived in Paris, that they had interviewed certain British and American representatives, and that the American representatives, and it was believed some of the British representatives were sympathetic, I am perfectly sure that the mental attitude of Members of this House and the mental attitude almost universany throughout the country was one of utter incredulity. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House made a reassuring statement last Wednesday or Thursday, we were considerably relieved, but it is now perfectly clear, from information which has not only appeared in the Press but which has come to some of us, that the statement that was then made whilst it was believed to have been, without a shadow of doubt, a perfectly true statement as to the knowledge then possessed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, did not in
fact approximate to the substantive state of facts as we now know them to have been in Paris.
What is the position? The position as we know it, without doubt, without fear of contradiction, is this, that there has been two American citizens in Mr. Steffins and a Mr. Bullit who have been permitted to go through Bolshevik Russia, who have held long and extended conferences with Lenin and the Bolshevik leaders there, and who have come to Paris on the passport of the Bolshevik leader with a written document signed by Lenin himself, in which there are certain terms proposed for the recognition of the Bolshevik Government. The entire terms of that document we do not know. The entire terms of that document have not even been hinted at either by the American Press representatives or by the Press representatives of this country. But there are one or two terms that we do know of to a certainty, and one of the terms is this, that the whole of the Russian people are to be recognised as subjects of the Bolshevik regime. To give recognition on that basis would mean that the whole of loyalist Russia, the whole of those Russians who on the actual or the implied guarantee of the Allies have been putting up a fight against this appalling Red pestilence are to be handed over body and soul to the Lenin regime. It is impossible, I say, for a self-respecting country to contemplate recognition in that way. Above and beyond all, when we know what the Lenin regime has meant, it is impossible for this country, who unselfishly and self-sacrificingly went into the War, to contemplate recognition on that basis, and I go further and venture the expression of this opinion, that if for any reasons—I do not care for the moment what they are—if for any reasons the plenipotentiaries from this country saw fit to grant recognition in that way, the vast majority of the House of Commons would repudiate it. I am perfectly certain it is impossible to the minds of some of us, it is impossible that there should be serious consideration for a single moment of granting recognition to the Bolshevik regime. What is it? We have heard stories told in the Press. But let Members, if they have any doubt about what it means, let them just study the White Book which was issued by the Government two days ago, and they will find there that to recognise the Lenin regime is to give recognition to anarchy, to mad
anarchy, to wicked cruelty beyond any possible conception of any British mind at least. I know there are people in this country who have taken the view that the stories which have appeared from time to time in the Press, containing horrors of the rule or lack of rule, who have found those horrors so appalling that they believe that they must be the invention of some wicked German.
If they have any doubt at all about it let them read the officially verified statement which the Government of this country has deemed it expedient to publish in this White Book. Let me take, if I may, at haphazard one or two extracts from this book. Take the case of the report of Sir Charles Elliott to Earl Curzon, received on 23rd February. He gives the cases, a large number of cases, of Russians who have been murdered. He gives cases Numbers 19 and 20, two of twelve labourers arrested for refusing to support the Bolshevik Government on 12th July. These men were cast alive into a hole in which were hot slag deposits from works at Verhisetski, near Ekaterinburg. The bodies were identified by their fellow labourers. In the same report he gives two cases, Numbers 69 and 71, killed at Kaslingski works, near Kishtim, on the 4th June, together with twenty-seven other civilians. No. 70 had his head smashed in, exposing his brains. Seventy-one had his head smashed in, his arms and legs broken, and two bayonet wounds.
Take the report from Odessa—a report by the British chaplain, where he says that for three days before the Austrians marched into Odessa the Bolsheviks had divers at work from the Imperial yacht "Almas" and the cruiser "Sinope," dragging the harbour for the weighted bodies of the murdered officers, of whom about 400 had been done to death, the majority after torture with boiling steam followed by exposure to currents of freezing air. Others were burnt alive bound on planks which were slowly pushed into the furnaces a few inches at a time. In this way perished General Chournokof. The bodies recovered from the water were destroyed in ships' furnaces, so that no evidence might remain to be brought before the Austro-Germans. Later, a member of the Austrian staff told me they had been supplied with a list of names of over 400 officers from the Odessa district. The true loyalist Russians were protecting Odessa from the Bolshevik
Army. They were being overwhelmed and overtures for surrender were made. The terms as agreed to were that every life should be saved in Odessa. As soon as the Bolshevik army arrived in two days all the officers of the Russian army were arrested. They were then taken down on to one of the battleships in command of the Bolsheviks. They were without exception stripped of their clothes. Steam jets from the boiler-room were turned on to their naked bodies. They were scalded all over. They were then exposed to something like twenty-seven degrees of frost for two hours. After this stones were tied to their feet and they were dropped overboard into the harbour of Odessa. There was a desire on the part of the family of one of the officers to recover the body for burial in the old village churchyard. A diver was sent down. The diver returned horror stricken. He reported that the whole of these four hundred officers to whose feet stones were attached were in consequence of that standing upright at the bottom of the water, like half a battalion of men, just swaying backwards and forwards. He refused to go on with the work. That is the incident to which the OFFICIAL REPORT refers and here is a case where there was an actual undertaking given by the emissaries of Lenin that life should be protected and that those who had surrendered should be made safe.
Then here again there is a Report—I will only trouble the House with one further extract on this aspect. It is a Report that gives an interview with a gentleman who was a manager of a British firm in Petrograd. He speaks of how the Bolsheviks hold power in Petrograd:
They continue to hold power," he said, "by a system of terrorism and tyranny that has never before been heard of. This is centred at Gorokovaya 2, under the title of the Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution, Speculation and Sabotage. Originally under the direction of Yourelski it confined its operations to dealing with offences under these headings, but after his death it came out frankly as an instrument of the Red Terror, and since then its operations make the history of the French Reign of Terror, and the Spanish Inquisition appear mild by comparison. People were arrested wholesale, not merely on individual orders, on information received from spies, but literally wholesale. People were arrested in streets, theatres, cafes, every day in hundreds and conveyed to prison. There their names and other details were entered up, and the next day parties of a hundred or so were marched to one or another prison while their unhappy relations stood for hours and days endeavouring to learn what had become of them. They were kept in prison two, three, or four months without any
examination or accusation being made. Then some were accused and shot, fined, or all property confiscated, others were allowed to be ransomed by their friends, and others were released without any explanation. No trial was given. The accusation and the examination were made together. The examiner was generally an ex-workman, or even a criminal. Examination was made in private. Sentence was confirmed by a member of the Commission, and that is the only trial anyone ever received at Gorokovaya 2. The climax was reached after the murder of Uritsky—attack on the British Embassy, and the Lockhart affair, where hundreds of people were arrested in various parts of the town, mostly officers, who were shot and thrown into the river, or bound, put into barges, and the barges sunk, all without even the formality of being taken to Gorokovaya 2. I was in prison—
and so on. Those are extracts, let it be borne in mind, from a document which the British Government have seen fit to publish. It is not a question of any stories which might be discredited outside.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not that anonymous?

Mr. EDWARDS: The Government vouch for it. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has the slightest doubt about these stories, perhaps he will do something to attack the veracity of the witnesses who have been called by the Government for the purposes of this Report.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Anonymous tittle tattle!

HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

Mr. EDWARDS: I have never had very much belief either in the judgment or the wisdom, whilst quite respecting the honesty, of the hon. Member, but when he says that this is "anonymous tittle tattle," if he likes I am prepared to give him the names of eye-witnesses, distinguished Englishmen and Russians, whom I am quite sure he would regard as men of truth and veracity, who will give him the evidence from their own eyes of what has happened.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS: As I supplemented the OFFICIAL REPORT by this statement which I made about the appalling massacre at Odessa, and as the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to have some doubt, let me give him another case.

Mr. STANTON: Do not worry about him.

Mr. EDWARDS: I do not—

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): I would remind hon. Members that leave was given to move the Adjournment in order to discuss the alleged overtures with the Bolsheviks at the Peace Conference. Although, of course, I quite, understand that the Report which the hon. Member has mentioned comes into some part of the discussion, it must not become the subject for the whole of the discussion.

Mr. EDWARDS: I was only putting the point as to what is the kind of creature with whom it is suggested there should be negotiations.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is exactly what I said would be in order, but a general discussion as to the accuracy of that Report would not be in order.

Mr. EDWARDS: I am not concerned whether this Report is accurate or not, except as showing that, at all events, the British Government have given a definite official acceptance by the publication of this Report of what in their view is the character of this pestilential evil of Bolshevism, and I was supplementing what was put in that Report by evidence which has come to me from representative Englishmen and very distinguished. Russians as to the character of this particular element which it is now suggested should be recognised in the terms of the overtures which they have made. From that point I will pass, except to say that I shall be pleased to give the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood), or any of those associated with him, the evidence and the names of the witnesses, who can be seen, of a further incident characteristic of this Bolshevik regime. It is the case of where the Bolshevik soldiers went into a high school in a certain town. Six or seven days afterwards loyalist Russians went in, and when they went into the schoolroom they found on first appearance that the boys and girls there were sitting at their desks in the ordinary way, but, on closer examination, it was found that the hands and feet of those children were nailed to the desks and to the floor respectively, and there they had died of starvation. I dare say the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) may say that that is anonymous tittle-tattle. I shall be very glad to give him the names of the representative witnesses who can vouch for the accuracy of that statement. I suppose that to the vast majority of the Members of this House it is not necessary
by detail to emphasise the character of the beast which we are now asked officially to recognise
My Friends and I recognise the gravity of the situation. We take the view that it is practically impossible to secure anything like a comprehensive peace, or a peace that is calculated to be permanent, with Russia left out of the reckoning, but we believe that we cannot possibly make that permanent peace by recognising all usurpation of law and order, and by recognising the bloodstained hands of "these anarchist assassins. We believe it would be better to delay things rather than to give recognition to this kind of thing, not only better for the peace of Europe, but pre-eminently better for the sake of the future good social order in this country, for which we are concerned, and others. If there is to be formal recognition in response to these overtures of the Bolshevik regime in Russia, what are you going to say if it lifts its ugly head in this country? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is doing it now!"] I agree it is doing it, and so far as it is doing it almost everybody is out to fight it. But if you are going to give formal recognition to it in Russia as a sort of short way out of the difficulty, you are simply going to bring anarchy, revolution, and red ruin on the whole of the civilised communities of the world. If you are going to recognise it here and now, you are going to wipe out all the great work that has been done and all the sacrifices that have been made by those who have fought in the name of good order, liberty, humanity, and democracy in the great War. We recognise the gravity of the situation, not only from the point of view of this disorder extending to this country and of this anarchist pestilence spreading to this country, but of what may happen in Great Britain. Think of it—anarchy, Bolshevism frankly and unblushingly admitted will be the creation and the triumph of German diplomacy. It means that Germany is going to organise it, and it is not without significance that vast numbers of Chinese cut-throats have been brought in for many of the dark deeds which are being performed in Russia now. Leave Russia in a state of anarchy, formally and diplomatically recognise that state of anarchy, and Germany will organise Russia, and through Russia China, and instead of your having the combination, as we had in this War, of the
Central Powers of Germany and Austria and Turkey you are going to have a vast population, infinitely greater than that which we had to face, dominated from the North Sea by Germany right away to the Pacific Ocean, and down through China, and I warn the Government, if it is necessary to warn them, that that is a real danger which some of us contemplate with awe if there is the least recognition of Bolshevism. I know the sort of thing that is likely to be said. What is the alternative? It is very difficult to say what is the alternative. There are many weary, tired people in this country, there are many who are anxious about those who are near and dear to them in this small force at Archangel who simply say, "Let the Russians stew in their own juice." But the disease, if it is allowed to fructify, is not going to stop there. This disease in Russia must be stamped out at all costs. On this point there is a great deal of difference of opinion. I speak with a very great deal of reluctance and diffidence when it comes to a question of policy with regard to Russia.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not within his rights in referring to the sending of forces to Russia. He must confine himself to the terms of the Motion.

Mr. EDWARDS: What I have to discuss, of course, according to the formal terms of the Motion, is these alleged overtures from Lenin, and I want to use arguments why those overtures should not be contemplated seriously and considered by the plenipotentiaries of this country. I submit that I am entitled in that connection to show that there is a better way, to show the danger of overtures from this kind of creature, to show what would be the consequences which would flow from a recognition of these overtures, and to show what I believe might be a better way to adopt than to accept the overtures from these creatures. I know I was very near the border-line, and because of that I shall be very brief, but I shall be brief for another reason, and that is my general reluctance to make any suggestions as to positive policy which may belong to the military domain as well as to the domain of diplomacy and politics to which one is now addressing oneself. I had shared the view that the policy of sending forces to different points of the circumference of Russia was never calculated to be other than futile.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is the point which I say the hon. Member is not entitled to discuss. I am pointing it out in his own interests if he wants the Debate to conclude by Eleven o'clock. He will see the kind of Debate which will take place unless I stop it now. He must keep away from the question of troops going to different parts of Russia.

Mr. EDWARDS: I was not going to attempt to discuss in detail the question of particular bodies of troops, but it is quite obvious that this is a matter of vital importance to the future wellbeing of the world. We are now discussing the question whether these overtures are to be seriously entertained or not. One of the grounds upon which it might possibly be entertained is that the policy which has been pursued up to now has proved to be futile, and therefore they must do this or there is nothing to be done. I submit that I am entitled to go at least as far as to say that the particular method which has been adopted and has so far failed and may lead to that kind of mentality at the Peace Conference which enables these terms to be contemplated, was destined from the beginning to be futile, and because of that this other policy may be adopted as a policy of despair. From the beginning I for one had thought this was calculated to be futile. I have not entered into this Debate in any idle spirit. I have not entered on the discussion of this question without the most careful and elaborate attempts to get what I believe to be the very best opinion from loyalist Russians, and from the solid heavyweight Britisher who has come from Russia, and what they suggest is that instead of the Bolshevik mischief being recognised in a formal way at Paris, as suggested by the emissaries from Lenin, the Bolshevik machine might be crushed out if there were a bold attempt made, not to send armed forces from this country but to accept the overtures which have come from the representatives of loyal Russia; that if we will guarantee full supplies for Petrograd and Moscow they will find the necessary means to get to Petrograd, the very heart of the Bolshevist movement. In other words, that we might save our people for certain who are threatened at Archangel.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question of Archangel is quite outside the Motion.

Mr. EDWARDS: I was pointing out what has been represented as the better
way. What is said is instead of your contemplating giving formal and official recognition to the Bolshevik regime, do something definite and effective, without sacrifice of British lives, to stamp it out, and that opinion goes to the extent that if the Allies will give an undertaking to provide supplies through the Baltic, and take steps to encourage General Yudenitch he would undertake from the military point of view to capture Petrograd and hold it. All he asks is a guarantee of food and supplies.

An HON. MEMBER: Will the hon. Gentleman give us the names of the Russians who supplied this information?

Mr. EDWARDS: I shall be very glad to give any Member a full list of the Russians with whom I have consulted.

Earl WINTERTON: The Bolshevists friends.

Mr. JOHN JONES: Whose friend are you? You want the Czar back again.

Mr. STANTON: It was no worse when he was there.

Mr. JONES: It is only lately you have changed your coat. Get on with it!

Mr. EDWARDS: The House will understand that it would be impossible of my own personal knowledge to give expression to the views to which I have given expression—and I have not attempted to give expression to these views, without the most comprehensive and the most exhaustive consultation with representative Russians and British people who have returned from Russia during the last few weeks. It is because I believe they are witnesses of credibility and speak with vast and intimate knowledge that I thought it my duty to commend this suggestion to the Government as an alternative to what the papers tell us is in contemplation in Paris, and I hope it will be conveyed to our plenipotentiaries in Paris that at all events the view of the House of Commons, focussing public opinion in this country, is that we should regard with horror and with dismay the possibility suggested by some of the papers that official recognition is to be given to the iniquitous regime of Bolshevism in Russia.

Brigadier-General CROFT: As many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall be very brief in seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend. The day when the Prinkipo Conference was suggested was a fatal day
as far as ending differences in Europe were concerned, and if there is any truth in the latest rumour, I think that I am right in saying that it has created dismay in every section of the House, with the exception, perhaps, of one or two representatives who have, perhaps honestly, declared themselves as Bolsheviks in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: With the greatest respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, I must really contradict that. I never for one moment suggested that I was a Bolshevik, but I am opposed to tyranny either in this country or any other country.

Brigadier-General CROFT: It may have been in chaff, but my hon. and gallant Friend last Session on these benches announced that he was a Bolshevik. I am in the memory of the House. I thought that that was probably the reason that he was immediately sent on a mission to Vladivostok. When the Prinkipo Conference was suggested that action spread dismay among all the men who are our friends in Russia, and whom we may hope to be our friends in future when this appalling state of affairs ends. I believe that I am right in saying that the Don Cossacks were convinced that sooner or later, when the Allied Powers had recovered from their exhaustion owing to their part in the great War, they would come to their aid. Directly that conference was suggested messages were sent to them by the Bolsheviks, and among a large part of the forces of the Cossacks there was a feeling of absolute despair. Like my hon. Friend, I have had the opportunity of meeting probably some three score Russians who have come here and learning the situation from them. When our Government suggested the possibility of a Conference at Prinkipo, at which other parties in Russia were also to be represented—which perhaps, to a certain extent, mitigated the proposal—it gave the impression in this and other countries that Bolshevism was not the vile thing which it really is. The Home Secretary, who is present, knows that the feeling, small though it be, exists in this country, and that most dangerous statements are being made, and even gentlemen who have been Members of this House —they are not in this House now I am
glad to say—have, within the last two or three weeks in Hyde Park, deliberately advocated in their speeches, with demobilised men and soldiers among the audience, that their hearers should imitate-the conduct of those in Russia—a clear indication of mutiny.
This kind of thing is going on. If there is any truth in this latest report, what would be the effect on the forces of disorder in this country? The immediate result would be that the immunity which they at present possess would be greatly strengthened. They would be able to say, "At any rate you are talking to these people; you are prepared to discuss peace terms with them. We are no worse than they are." Consequently the whole moral force of the Government in dealing with the Bolshevik peril in this country which undoubtedly exists—there is no use shutting our eyes to it—would be tremendously weakened. We went into the great War in order to try to secure peace on earth, and half of Europe is suffering under this unholy law of murder. We are beginning to understand now that there is a brutal military tyranny-going on in Russia which has never been, equalled in the history of mankind. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will study this, question from every point of view, and I believe that they will come to that opinion, also. The achievements of the Bolshevists in Russia, on the evidence before us, make the achievements of those whom we described as the Huns in the War pale into insignificance. It is the most terrible business ever known in the history of the world. This is the system to which we have been too wont to blind our eyes.
9.0 P.M.
How is this kind of thing affecting Russia? It affects all classes. I am not afraid to mention, first of all, the late Czar of Russia, whose last statement to his people was to implore them to be faithful to the alliance against the Germans, and who, as we all know, with the whole of his family and his children, were brutally murdered. The nobility have been either stamped out or are tramping the streets in the towns of Russia, bootless, unfed, and scavenging to try to get food. The middle classes have been absolutely ruined. The small tradesmen have had their shops shut. Business has become nationalised, so we are told. I hope that the methods will be noted. But that is not all. The working classes in Russia are conscripted body and soul, and are mere chattels, treated like
beasts of burden by their masters, the Bolshevik dictators. May we not, when there is any talk whatever of discussing this question with the Bolshevists, take our memories back to what Russia has done for us? When we were hard pressed in the early weeks of the War the whole strength of Russia was thrown into East Prussia and saved Paris and the Channel ports with ill-equipped and unarmed forces, that went with a heroism which has been rarely known in military history. The United States mourns her dead, and France and Belgium and Serbia and Italy, and other countries, mourn their dead, and we in this country made great sacrifices, but may I not remind the House that if you put all the losses of all the Allies together they do not equal what Russia lost on behalf of the Allies. When I say Russia, I mean the real Russia which is being starved to death now by these people. An hon. Gentleman denies it, but he cannot read what is happening. If he would meet the working-men who have recently come back from Russia they would tell him that what has appeared up to date in the British Press is quite mild in comparison to the reality, and they are astonished at the lack of any kind of exaggeration with regard to this question. There are three alternatives. One is that Bolshevism, will spread over Germany, include Russia, and possibly include China. That is the most formidable thing we can possibly contemplate, because it means the end of civilisation, the end of Christianity—absolutely the end of Christianity. An hon. Gentleman says "No, no!" but does he realise that in all the churches and cathedrals in Russia, where the Bolshevik regime holds, they are dancing day and night in those churches, which have become the homes of the harlots of Russia. We ought to realise those facts which show that the danger of any talk of this description we have heard is so great because it is misunderstood. Secondly, there is the possibility that the people of Russia, the intellectual people, who eventually will gather round with the real workers of Russia who are not with the Bolsheviks, will try to establish a new regime and will appeal to Germany to help them. In that case it would mean simply handing over once more Russia to Germany for future development, and you will, in consequence, have a great unity between Germany and Russia. The third alternative, and the only possible alternative for
this country, with its old, honest traditions, is to have no truck whatever with the thing which is evil, and to discriminate between right and wrong. If this House can send a message this evening to the Prime Minister in Paris—and I cannot believe, after what the Leader of the House told us, that he could for one instant even consider this question with whatever foreign country it may be—I say if we can only send a message to show that this House is, as it has shown this evening, practically unanimous on this point, we will, I hope, strengthen his hands, so that he will be able to say to any tempter who may say that this is an easy way out, that this country will not betray the whole of her history and her faith, but will stand by the forces of law and order in Russia and have nothing to do with those men.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I understand that it has been arranged by the powers behind the Throne that I am not to speak to-night, but am to speak on Tuesday next instead, and, therefore, I shall content myself by saying that the speeches we have listened to to-night, the two able, eloquent and moving speeches, bring me back in memory to this House in the year 1795, when speakers as able and as eloquent, and as filled with the horrors that were taking place in Paris, urged this House, and almost in the same terms, to go to war with France in order to put down the same horrors there. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Brigadier-General Croft), the Leader of the Nationalist party, in standing to-night almost in the shoes of Edmund Burke. I congratulate the country on having in Paris a Prime Minister who has a good deal more common sense than the armchair warriors opposite.

Lieutenant-Colonel WALTER GUINNESS: In taking part in this Debate I do not wish to be understood as endorsing for a moment the suggestion that has been made in the Press that our Government can be contemplating negotiations with the Bolshevists. We have had such specific pledges from them that it is unthinkable that there could be any foundation for all the rumours which have found their way into the public Press, but we do recognise that at the present time great stresses are being developed in Paris which may cause pressure to be placed on our negotiators which were not contemplated, certainly when the Prime Minister made his statement at the beginning of this Session. Therefore, I think
we owe our thanks to the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. C. Edwards), who raised this Motion, which will enable us to send a message to the Prime Minister that this House, more than it did even at the beginning of the Session, to-day holds that we must have no truck with the Bolshevist horror in Russia. I can understand those who take up the attitude that we should not interfere with Russia and it has been argued by a certain party in this House, and a party with considerable numbers in the country, that we must let Bolshevism burn itself out. I disagree with that policy. Personally, I think it is a cruel policy and a policy which shows black ingratitude to our former Allies, but it is a policy which many people who disagree with Bolshevism honestly hold. But I cannot understand anyone who wishes to see orderly government there advocating that we should force Bolshevism on Russia, and that in short is what any negotiation with the Bolshevik Government would amount to. Russia has shown as clearly, as any country could do, that she does not want Bolshevism, and that she hates the Government which is ruling her at the present time by force. We have been told by the Foreign Secretary that there have been a hundred peasant insurrections in Russia against Bolshevism and that sometimes that it has taken weeks to suppress those Insurrections, and that they have been finally overwhelmed by vigorous measures, such as complete extermination of the villages which were in revolt against the Government. The White Paper which has been circulated gives us further information on that point. It tells how, when a village in the Bolshevik area in Russia revolts, it is not a matter only of the men suffering but of every woman and child being condemned to a cruel death. We have also the admission of the Bolsheviks themselves that the executions in Russia in the large towns amounted, up to the 1st January, to 13,700. That was the statement of Petrovsky, the Commissary of the Interior, and it did not, of course, include the smaller towns or villages. If Russia wanted Bolshevism it would not be necessary for the Bolsheviks to have these cold-blooded murders of whole sections of the population in order to maintain its rule. Russia does not want Bolshevism, and no country has ever shown dislike of its Government more bravely than the Russians in the Bolshevik area.
The British Government might have been induced to pursue the policy of letting Bolshevism burn itself out, but I cannot believe that they would want to give Bolshevism a new lease of life by interfering with the economic forces which are bringing it to the ground. Burning Bolshevism out is a slow policy, it is a cruel policy, but in the end I believe it will be an effective policy. The strength of Bolshevism has been in their control of food and supplies and arms in Russia. They disarm all those who are against them and shoot down anybody who is in political disagreement with their views. But their stronger weapon has really been the weapon of starvation. They have divided the population up into four categories, and whereas the first category, consisting of fully-fledged trade unionists and employés of the Soviets, get full rations, the remaining categories are being slowly starved to death. There is no doubt, from this White Paper, quite apart from the evidence of the Russians whom we most of us have met, that this has been the strongest weapon in the hands of the Bolsheviks. In the White Paper our Consul at Vladivostok, Mr. Alston, reports that their followers have supported Bolshevism, not because they believe in their propaganda, but because the alternative to joining the Bolsheviks is starvation. I saw in a newspaper to-day that starvation alone had made Russia Bolshevik. That is a complete misstatement of the position. The reverse is the fact. It is Bolshevism alone which has made Russia hungry, and it is this hunger in Russia, a natural economic force, which is now reacting and threatening Bolshevism at its roots. The peasants in the villages now will not sell their food to the Government. The only manufacture, out of all the industries of Russia, is now the manufacture of paper money, and the peasants will not exchange their corn for this useless paper money. The White Paper, on page 23, informs us that there is plenty of food in Russia, that there is plenty of everything in Russia except perhaps coffee, but, as we have heard from other sources, the peasants prefer to bury their food rather than give it to the Bolshevik dictators and thus rivet still more deeply this horrible tyranny on their country.
The truth is that, owing to starvation, the Bolsheviks are at their wits' end, and now it is suggested that we shall help them out of this difficulty by sending food into
Russia. We are informed in the public Press that the Bolsheviks have offered all kinds of commercial advantages to the United States, and that, in exchange for that, it is proposed that we shall authorise a certain neutral—the name of the neutral even being printed, a Scandinavian—to organise the supply of food to Russia. I have no objection whatever to feeding Russia provided you send an army to Russia to see that the food goes to those people who are starving. If you send food without control to Russia you will simply fatten up the Bolsheviks and the Chinese executioners, and enable them to commit greater atrocities against the suffering population. I will not go into the crimes of the Bolsheviks. They are set forth in the White Paper, and I hope that all hon. Members have read it. But, quite apart from their crimes, even if there was none of this black record against them, we have no right to force on Russia a self-constituted Government, founded on no kind of democratic sanction. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has suggested several times in questions in this House that the Governments which are opposed to Bolshevism in Russia—that of Admiral Koltchak, and the subordinate Governments of General Denekin and M. Tchaikowsky, are all monarchist Governments.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Hear, hear!

Lieutenant - Colonel GUINNESS: The hon. and gallant Member says "Hear, hear!" That is an absolutely unfounded statement. It is acknowledged by every Russian I have met—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is a matter of opinion, I suppose.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: No, I do not think it is a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact; it is a matter of record; it is a matter of the previous history of those who are working with the orderly Governments of Russia. It is not a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of sentiment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Nothing is a matter of opinion.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Well, perhaps as the hon. and gallant Member admits that it is not a matter of opinion, he would like to hear the facts. I was not going to weary the House with this, but he might perhaps like to know who is supporting this Government of Admiral
Koltchak. I have had sent to me during the Debate this evening by a Russian in London the names of the delegates in Paris.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did he give you the names of those whom Admiral Koltchak put in prison—of, the previous Social Revolutionaries who were not Bolsheviks?

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Will you give us the names?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No, they are well known. Tchernoff is one.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Tchernoff is one. That is a very valuable statement, because I dare say the hon. and gallant Member did not see in the Press the other day that M. Tchernoff, one of the leaders of the Social Revolutionaries, has now been admitted as an equal by the Bolsheviks.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: After being imprisoned by Koltchak.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Well, as he is considered a fit and proper associate by the Bolsheviks, I do not blame Admiral Koltchack for imprisoning him. After all, Admiral Koltchak has got to secure the foundations of his government, and if M. Tchernoff shares the views of the Bolsheviks, and if the Bolsheviks are using all these outrageous methods of tyranny, and murder and cruelty to secure their position, surely it is only reasonable that Admiral Koltchak should take steps against M. Tchernoff. As a matter of fact, he cannot have taken any very effective steps against him, because, if the hon. and gallant Member has been watching the reports from Russia, he will now see that M. Tchernoff is at liberty, and that his party is received to the bosom of the Bolsheviks. The hon. and gallant Member expressed curiosity as to the personnel of the Government which he considers to be monarchist. Admiral Koltchak's Government is now recognised by the Government of General Denekin and by M. Tcharkowsky. M. Tcharkowsky is the Social Revolutionary who was banished from Russia, and who spent most of his life abroad in this country. In Paris the representatives of this "Monarchist" Government have agreed to stand for a freely elected Constituent Assembly and to leave to that Constituent Assembly the decision as to the future form of the Russian Government. Among those dele-
gates are the following cadets: Struve, originator of the 1904 revolution; Nabokoff, Stakovich, and Efremof. Among the Socialists are Tchaikovsky, Ivanof, Savinkof, Bakmetef, Titof, Avksentieff and Bourtzeff, who was responsible more than anyone else for the last revolution. It is an absolute misrepresentation of the case to say that these men are Monarchists. The anti-Bolshevist Government in Russia are committed to consulting the country as to the form of government they wish. Therefore, for that reason alone, quite apart from the crimes of the Bolsheviks, I think it would be an outrageous interference with Russian liberties for us to bolster up the present absolutely unconstitutional government which has been set up in Russia.
Of course, the matter interests us from a far wider point of view than that of the question of the Russian constitution. Bolshevism is not a Russian question; it is a world question. You can no more make a treaty with Bolshevism or confine it not to spread into other countries than you can make a treaty with a house on fire. Bolshevism means to try to conquer the world, and this country, so far as omens can be judged, does not want Bolshevism. This conutry has made considerable sacrifices to resist German domination and to have a British Government in Great Britain. Personally, and I think I speak for many others, I would far rather have had a German Emperor ruling in England than international Socialism under the auspices of Brorstein alias Trotsky. When the German Emperor sanctioned the murder of women and children he did it by the bullet or the shell—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Biblical phrases!"]—but he has left his former Russian allies to turn on Chinese executioners to saw asunder his victims and to gouge out their eyes before they are finally put out of their misery. Public memory may be very short; but this country still remembers that Russia has had 1,700,000 dead in the War. History has recorded many treacheries, but I do not think it has ever recorded any treachery so black as would be the treachery of requiting the sufferings and the sacrifices of our Russian Allies by forcing them under a Bolshevist regime.
If we have negotiations with the Bolshevist Government we shall force every Russian to be a subject of this unconstitutional rule, and the acknowledgment of this Government would be an absolutely deadly
blow to Admiral Kolchak and General Denikin and the gallant Armies who, after hardships innumerable, are now winning their way to victory. The history of his Army is not perhaps generally realised in this country: how, at the beginning, a handful of 3,000 Russian officers wandered over the steppes under General Korniloff, unarmed, without a base and without supplies, and how that handful of Russian officers has grown until it has become an Army of over half a million. I cannot believe that this country would countenance the betrayal of that loyal force in Russia, and I cannot believe that they would countenance the betrayal of the loyal population of Archangel who are now absolutely committed to our cause and who would be murdered, and worse than murdered, by the Bolshevists if we were to evacuate that territory. I believe that the pro-Bolshevists in this country and in this House are a mere handful, although they are noisy. The Dutch Minister in Petrograd has, I believe, gauged the feeling of this country more accurately than hon. Members who have supported the Bolshevists in this House.

HON. MEMBERS: Who are they?

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: I am glad to hear from that interruption that they are apparently repudiated.

Mr. SEXTON: Tell us who they are?

Mr. J. JONES: There is another point of view besides yours.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: I only said—

An HON. MEMBER: It was a dirty remark to make!

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: I am not accusing anyone here.

HON. MEMBERS: Then withdraw.

Mr. SEXTON: You made the suggestion.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Hon. Members must address the Chair.

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: I regret that I was tempted to deal with the interruption. I do not want to accuse hon. Members.

Mr. J. JONES: made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

Major Earl WINTERTON: May I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the continued disorderly interruption of the hon. Member for Silvertown?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The interruption has not been continuous. I called hon. Members to order, and I thought we were proceeding to order.

Mr. JONES: I apologise for any interruption I have caused, but I am not so well educated as the hon. Gentleman opposite.

Lieutenant - Colonel GUINNESS: I would be the last to suggest that the hon. Member for Silvertown had any sympathy with the Bolsheviks.

Mr. JONES: I have fought them more than you have!

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: I am sufficiently acquainted with the hon. Member's record to know that that is the last accusation which anyone could make against him. Further, I welcome the repudiation of other hon. Members on those benches of any kind of support for the Bolshevik Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We like fair play!

Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: I believe the Government would be most ill advised to have any kind of communications with the Bolsheviks. The country would be behind them in refusing any measures of the kind. We have to remember that our Russian Allies are living in an absolute inferno, an inferno of slavery, torment, and starvation. It is for us to knock down the gates. It is certainly not for us to succour or to feed or in any way to help the devils who hold the keys.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I shall strictly observe your ruling, Sir, that within the terms of this Motion we are not competent to discuss what should be the military policy of this country in Russia, either with a view to relieving our own sorely-pressed troops, who are being as much tortured and battered by the Bolsheviks as are the civilian population, if the truth "were known, or for the purpose of restoring law and order in that country, nor shall I indulge in any speculation as to how far any particular Member in this House may be accused of being a Bolshevik or of having any sympathy with the Bolsheviks. I am more concerned to be assured that the Prime Minister of England does not come within that category. I shall want a lot of convincing that he does, and in the few observations I want
to offer the House I shall venture to suggest where I think the real danger lies. I think we are indebted to the hon. and learned Member for East Ham for introducing this question to-night. It is one of several grave and serious questions which attach to-day to the making of peace, and I await with profound interest such statement as may come from the Treasury Bench to reassure the House and the country that there is no foundation at all for the rumour that so far as the British representatives are concerned they will dally for one moment with these overtures from Lenin. Let me put one or two very simple statements of fact before the House, and invite any hon. Gentleman behind me or elsewhere to combat them if he can. I am prepared to give chapter and verse for every statement I make, and the first statement I make I do not think will be seriously disputed. It is that the whole of this Bolshevik movement is part and parcel of German propaganda, just as I should venture to say, if it assumed a more serious aspect in this country, that the same remark would apply. For the hon. Gentlemen on my right, for responsible and accredited and trusted leaders of the Labour party, I have the sincerest and profoundest, and if I may say so quite honestly, from my association with them in this House and elsewhere, the most affectionate respect, but there are other leaders of labour with considerable followings who are trying their best to introduce this disease of Bolshevism into this country, and it is for that reason that I view with such apprehension the possibility, however remote it may be, of our Prime Minister and his colleagues representing us having any kind of negotiations with the spokesmen of Russian Bolshevism.
The next statement of fact I want to make is this, and again I do not think any hon. Member will dispute it. It is that Bolshevism in its working stands for anarchy, stands for despotism, stands for the enslavement of the working classes, stands for murder, pillage, rapine, lust, every conceivable crime which you will find in the devil's calendar, and that it has not brought one single benefit of any sort to the Russian people. The third statement of fact I make is this, and I beg such hon. Friends as may for the moment be doubtful as to the true inwardness of this question to ponder it. It is that these sudden overtures from Lenin simply
mean that the Bolsheviks are at the moment in a dilemma. They are short of food, their people are groaning under them and getting out of hand, and this is a piece of absolute trickery on their part to hold out—forgive me the phrase, Sir—the bloody hand of friendship to the Allies in the hope that we may be deceived, encouraged by well meaning but not very worldly wise people in this country, into accepting their bona fides and parleying with them for the making of peace. These being the facts, which can be demonstrated to the utmost, what we are here to-night to know, and what we are so indebted to the hon. Member for East Ham for giving us the opportunity of knowing, is, Is the British Government going to entertain for one moment these overtures? I venture to anticipate the statement from the Treasury Bench to be that our Prime Minister, who, whatever may be his shortcomings—and we all have them—is not a traitor to his country, is not coming back next week to face this House with such a moral crime upon his soul as would be the making of any treaty with these murderers and villains, I venture to say that that assurance will be this, that if pressure is being brought upon the Peace Conference to entertain these proposals, it is coming from some wild, airy, idealistic element in the Conference which, under the guise of great ideals and altruism, in my opinion—and I am here to express it, and I do not mince my words—is keeping a keen eye all the time upon the material benefits which will go to those countries farthest away from Europe when the trouble comes. It shall never rest on any body of representatives of this nation, and certainly not on this House of Commons, that we will have truck with this body of inhuman scoundrels who are by their conduct creating the greatest satire ever known in the history of the world on what is called civilisation, the greatest travesty upon the name of humanity, and —I say it with all reverence and sincerity —also a blasphemy upon the name of God. I say that if President Wilson is a party to that, or if he is for one moment sympathetically considering such a suggestion, the sooner he goes back to America and takes the opinion of the American people, whom he does not represent to-day, the better for the peace of the world.

Mr. J. F. GREEN: It is perhaps not inappropriate that the first time I address
this House it should be on a question connected with Russia. There are some hon. Members of this House who know, at any rate, that for the last quarter of a century I have been most intimately associated with that noble band of men and women who were really too good to live in their own country under the detestable regime of the Czars and found a refuge on our hospitable shores. That, I hope, is a sufficient answer to the somewhat silly cheers, if I may say so, that came from certain people on the opposite side of the House suggesting that those of us who were supporting this Motion, and who were denouncing the Bolsheviks, were in sympathy with the Government of the Czar and desired a Monarchical counter-revolution in Russia. There are men on the Labour Benches at any rate, and many are young men who have not known me, but some of them opposite, whom I now see before me, know what my record is in regard to the Russian movement, and I am quite sure they will acquit me of any sympathy with the desire to see a restoration of the Czardom in Russia. This I do say, and I am supported in this by many of my Russian friends—by my friend Monsieur Bourtzeff, by my very disinguished and dear friend the President of the Republic of Archangel, Monsieur Tchaikowsky, who has been mentioned already—and I ask any hon. Members upon those benches who know Monsieur Tchaikowsky as I have known him, whether it is not preposterous to suggest that such a man as that, after the life that he has led and the sacrifices that he has made, after being an exile from his country for more than a quarter of a century on account of his opposition to the Czars, is the sort of man who is out to bring about a Monarchical counter-revolution in Russia, and yet there is no man in Russia or in Europe who is a stronger and stouter-opponent of Bolshevism than the President, of the Republic of Archangel! That remark applies to every one of this noble band of men who are still alive and formerly lived in this country.
Therefore I suggest that it is idle to hint that the only people who are opposing this Bolshevik régime in Russia are people who want to bring about a Monarchical restoration. It is nothing of the kind. I wish to endorse everything that has been said by the previous speakers in denunciation of this Bolshevik régime. Mr. Gladstone, on a celebrated occasion, described
the Government of Ferdinand of Naples— Bomba, as lie was known—as the negation of God erected into a system of government. I venture to say the government of Bomba was a government we could all admire, compared with this detestable Bolshevik Government. I endorse every word of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (General Croft), when he said that nothing like it has ever been seen. It is a cursed thing, a danger to civilisation, and I say that if our Government, or any other civilised Government, is going to recognise its Ministers or have any dealings with these cut-throats and assassins, who, unfortunately, have a certain part of Russia, but not the whole under their heel—if those men are going to be recognised, and it is going to be supported as a definite Government, then I say it is the absolute end of civilisation in Europe and everywhere else in the world. Therefore, do not let us have any truck with those persons. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who, I am sorry to say, has fled, spoke of anonymous tittle-tattle in the Government White Paper. I am not dependent for my opinions on the evidence in the White Paper, although I accept it, and I am quite certain the Government would never have issued the evidence in the White Paper unless they were assured it was true. But I am not simply depending on that. Like other hon. Members in this House, I have—and I esteem it a great honour—many friends amongst Russians. I have seen these men who have come back, and heard from their lips the atrocities they have seen with their own eyes. Therefore I do suggest that it is idle for an hon. Member to come down here and suggest that we, are simply going upon anonymous tittle-tattle. No; we are going upon evidence which is as strong and as potent as any evidence ever presented to us, and I do ask this House to endorse the Motion which has been brought forward by my hon. Friend, and to express in no uncertain terms its determination that it will even go so far—and some of us have certainly no wish to do it—as to oppose this Government, and, if need be, we would resign our seats, and go back to our constituencies, rather than have any part in recognising this Bolshevik regime.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: There are one or two remarks I would like to make. Personally, I have never been an advocate of entering into partnership
with the devil. It does not pay, and, whether it does or does not, you are bound to quarrel in the long run. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme carried our memories back to the year 1795. I wish he had drawn the parallel a little further, because for the next fifteen or twenty years we were at war with the very country which had been in revolution, and it seems to me it is not impossible that we may be dragged into a, long war now unless we are careful. The Central Empires are in a very shaky condition at the present moment, and it is not improbable at all that they will link up with Russia and lead us into a very awkward situation. I would like to take this opportunity of drawing a moral from the situation as it is at present. Right hon. and hon. Members on the other side of the House during the Naval, Military, and Air Forces Bill seemed rather anxious to cut down our forces, and I think this is an opportunity for us to consider that we may be led into a good deal of trouble in the near future, and that this is not the time to reduce our forces to a dangerous degree. If the Central Powers do connect up with Russian we shall probably find ourselves in a very awkward situation, and, it may be, in for a long period of war. This opinion has been expressed to me by more than one eminent person on the other side of the Channel, and I think it is well worth remembering.

Mr. THOMAS: I rise only because up to now the whole of the Debate has centred round the unwisdom of negotiation with what is called the Bolshevik Government, and unless someone from our benches spoke it might be taken that our silence indicated sympathy or otherwise with this particular form of government. Let me first say that there is to-day in this country no responsible leader of the working-class movement—and here let me say that I do not claim that we who call ourselves. Labour men, and fight as Labour men, are the only people who represent working-class opinion, but I am entitled to say that by our particular trades-union and working-class position we are in the main in daily contact with those particular individuals. It is only in that particular sense that we at least are entitled to voice what we believe to be the views not only of those we represent, but the people to which we belong, and therefore I repeat that there is no trade union leader who, with the knowledge that.
we have of Russian affairs—unfortunately, up to now there appears to be no definite knowledge of Russian affairs, but what we have, and I have seen the private reports of Sir George Buchanan and Mr. Lockhart—all the information convinces me that, bad as the German Government may have been, it certainly was preferable to the atrocities that are committed in the name of the Soviet Government. But whilst recognising that, and recognising quite frankly that, so far as this country is concerned, we have no right, and we ought not to claim any right, to interfere with, dictate to, or suggest what the form of government of any other country ought to be, I say without fear of contradiction that all history proves that you cannot govern a country from outside.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can you say what the form ought not to be?

Mr. THOMAS: I am coming to that in a moment, but if you say what the form should not be, that at least presupposes the right on the part of the foreign country to say what form ours ought not to be. You have no right to attempt to dictate to one nation its policy if you are not prepared to concede the same right to that nation in the same circumstances.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Agreed!

Mr. THOMAS: So far as the form of government in Russia is concerned, we have no right whatever to interfere. The Motion says that it is "inadvisable, unwise, and dangerous" to negotiate with the present Government in Russia. Let me first deal with the references of my hon. Friend to President Wilson. There may be differences of opinion as to what the outcome to this country will be, because it is clearly evident, whilst we have won the War, that the Peace is not secured. There will be common agreement that it is the Peace that matters. Anyone who has worked during the War, who has followed foreign events, and certainly—I say it without fear of contradiction—anyone who has been in touch with matters since the Armistice, cannot do other than wish, whatever may be the result of Peace, that nothing will arise that will interfere with or weaken the friendship of the United States and this country. No one can pretend that so far as the United States is concerned—you may argue if you like she ought to have come in before. [An
HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but here again it is only fair to say that you get the best evidence on that point from a visit to America. President Wilson succeeded in bringing a united country in, whereas he might easily, if he had taken a false step, divided his country to the serious disadvantage of the Allies. Whether there are points of agreement or disagreement on that no one can pretend that there is any other Ally, with the greatest respect to the whole of them, whose motives, interests, or ideals were so pure and clean as those of the United States, and of this country. Therefore I do hope that nothing will be said in this Debate on the Russian situation which will ever reflect upon America, or, as I said earlier, interfere with the cementing of the friendship between these two great nations. So far, however, as the particular Motion is concerned, we are all speaking under the influence of, the knowledge which we get from the Press reports. The Press reports —well, I do not know what others may have in the way of inside knowledge, but so far as the Press reports go they indicate it is suggested that negotiations are taking place between the Allies and some representatives of the Russian Government.
Let us for a moment consider who are the representatives of this country in Paris. There is the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Barnes), and the Minister of Blockade. No one can pretend that their war record justifies this House, or any Member of it, in assuming that they are enemies of the country. The record of each of these men proves conclusively that they have not only the confidence, but the same confidence that hon. Members in this House have in them in view of their record during the War. That, at least, entitles them to the confidence of the people of this country at this stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Very well, if that is admitted, and I am now arguing purely from the point of view of hon. Members who have spoken, surely we are entitled to say that they in Paris must be the best judges of the world's situation?
What is the world's situation? There will foe no difference of opinion that whatever else is necessary a speedy peace is necessary before anything else It is useless talking about the international situation and ignoring the situation at
home. No one can pretend that we are likely to get into a normal position in this country until peace is made, and until then, so far as the internal position of the country, is concerned, it must remain very unsettled. I would suggest, therefore, that instead of hurling charges this evening on evidence that we know nothing about, instead of implying motives to the representatives of this country, without any foundation or evidence—

Mr. EDWARDS: On a point of Order. May I submit that there is no hon. Member in this House who has hurled charges at, or who doubts the sincerity of, our representatives in Paris.

Mr. THOMAS: The record of this Debate will speak for itself. Does not the Resolution itself imply a charge?

HON. MEMBERS: No, no!

Mr. THOMAS: Very well. If that is so, then why have a Debate? What is the object of all this excitement?

Mr. EDWARDS: Will the hon. Member allow me to point out that he has had experience in labour negotiations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] It has not been unknown to him, I believe, that in his negotiations he has got his hands strengthened by those whom he represents.

Mr. THOMAS: Then we are to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the object of this Motion is to strengthen the hands of the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is the clearest admission of what I suggest, and, that being so, the Prime Minister will be able to appreciate the full situation. It must either mean that the Prime Minister requires his hands strengthening. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] If he does, it means that he is getting weak. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Or if it does not mean that, it means that the Prime Minister himself requests that his hands be strengthened. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

An HON. MEMBER: Try again.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. THOMAS: That being so, and it is generally agreed it is not the latter, I accept the former as the position. I again repeat that the danger of the Debate is that this House is suspicious of the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, others will draw their conclusions. It is known that the Prime Minister—according to reports—comes back, or intends to come back, to make a statement to this
Parliament. If that is the general position so far as the people of this country are concerned, I ask whether the only construction put on this Resolution would not be that there is a feeling, at least, that the Prime Minister is not as strong on this matter as he ought to be. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] That being so, then there is certainly no object in the Debate. So far as we are concerned I can only repeat that I would regret any Debate in this House that would cause friction in Paris. I may be wrong, but I do say that, in my view, an early peace is necessary. So far as the people of this country are concerned they want to see a peace with an ordered Government—an early peace is necessary for affairs at home as well as abroad. On the other hand, we ought not, in a limited Debate like this, to do anything that will hamper those charged with this great responsibility, and above all we ought to say nothing that would tend to injure, cause offence, or sever a friendship for the United States, for, after all and above everything else, we wish that country to remain a permanent Ally of this country in the future.

Lieutenant - Colonel Sir S. HOARE: With most of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said I entirely agree. I quite agree that nothing should be said in this House which would even remotely endanger our relations with the United States, or that, anything should be done that could in any way delay the ratification of a speedy peace. But when the right hon. Gentleman asks what useful purpose can be served by this Debate, I suggest to him that without in any way desiring to embarrass the course of events in Paris, it is the duty of the House of Commons to express its views upon what after all in one of the most important questions that is being considered by the peace delegates. During the last two or three months every other Chamber except this House has had an opportunity of expressing its views upon the course of events in Paris, and I do not believe that the debates which have taken place, in the French or Italian Chambers, have had anything but a good effect upon the course of events in Paris.
That is all the more necessary because for reasons good or bad we are kept very much in the dark as to what is happening in Paris, and we should be resigning our
duty if upon an occasion like this we did not express our views to the peace delegates in such a way as not to cause trouble in Paris, but to let it be known quite clearly that it is the view of the House of Commons that we do not desire to enter into negotiations with a Government which we believe to be wholly bad. A week ago I brought to the notice of the House the negotiations which I understood were taking place between Lenin's Government and certain representatives in Paris. The House will recall to mind that I described to the Leader of the House the visit of two or three prominent Americans, and I made the statement that these gentlemen, travelling with diplomatic passports, had returned to Paris with a definite offer of peace from Lenin's Government. The Leader of the House knew nothing of this visit. He telegraphed to Paris, and the Prime Minister in his answer implied that he knew nothing of this visit either. Since then the Press both in this country and in France have published further details with reference to the visit that is alleged to have taken place, and I imagine, after an interval of a week, that the Home Secretary, when he comes to reply, will be able to give us some further details as to the visit that I described in general terms a week ago. I should like, for instance, to ask him whether these two or three gentlemen really have been to Russia; whether, in the second place, they have returned with a report containing offers from Lenin; whether that report has been circulated to the delegates of the Peace Conference, and whether—I think he might answer this as well—he himself has seen it? It seems to me to be a matter of such vital importance that the House is entitled to press for details. Last week I did not press for details, because the Leader of the House told me—and it was obviously quite true—that he had not any information with reference to the charges that I made. To-night, after a week, and in view of the repeated notices that have been issued in the Press, I venture to press the Home Secretary to tell us freely and frankly what is the truth of this story and what is the report that these gentlemen have brought back to Paris.
I realise the great difficulty of the Russian question. Do not let hon. Members opposite think that I do not realise the great complexity of what to my mind is the most difficult problem that
the Peace Conference has to face, but I would put it to them, apart from the ground of humanity of which we have heard much this evening, that simply on the ground of expediency it would be the height of folly at this moment to enter into negotiations with Lenin. Is it likely that these men, the men whom Lenin represents, the men who from time to time have broken their word, the men who first of all broke their word to the Allies by entering into the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and afterwards broke their word even to the Germans by starting the Bolshevik propaganda in Germany, are likely to keep any terms of a Peace Treaty that our delegates are likely to make with them in Paris? Suppose again the delegates in Paris did enter into negotiations with these people. Does any one suppose that that would solve the Russian question? Lenin's Government only maintains power over a certain part of Russia—a big part of Russia, I own. Nevertheless, the Government represented by Admiral Koltchak has control over the whole of Siberia, the Government of Tchaikowsky covers Archangel, and General Deniken has certain spheres of influence in South Russia. Suppose that the delegates in Paris entered into terms with Lenin. Would it affect Admiral Koltchak and the other Governments? Is it to be supposed it would solve the Russian question? Admiral Koltchak is advancing and gaining strength in Russia. Are we to make terms with Lenin at that very moment. It would only be making terms with a power that does not extend over the whole of Russia, a power which, according to all accounts, is weakening in its strength and force every day. I would therefore urge hon. Members opposite that simply on the ground of expediency it would be the height of folly to make terms with a Government which, in the opinion of many well qualified to speak, is tottering, whilst its enemies in Russia are gaining strength every day. I hope that the Home Secretary, when he comes to reply, will be able to confirm what the Leader of the House said last week, that he cannot conceive it possible that we should enter into negotiations with Lenin. I hope he will be able to confirm that and that he will go further and say what these Americans were doing in Russia and what report they have brought back. I hope he will be able to make it quite clear that whatever may be the views of these people, or of anybody
else, our delegates in Russia will on no account enter into any relations with a Government which has been treacherous to the Allies, which has committed every conceivable crime, and which, at this moment, is growing weaker, whilst the other Governments—our friends—are gaining in strength.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am afraid I cannot quite agree with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas) that this Debate will serve no useful purpose. On the contrary I think not only has the Debate been extremely useful, but the subject of it is one upon which the House of Commons is eminently entitled to express its views. In the course of the Debate one of my hon. Friends dropped an observation which might have implied that there were in this House hon. Members who were sympathisers with Bolshevism —sympathisers with the regime of Lenin. And if the Debate does nothing more than call forth from every quarter of the House an indignant repudiation that the House contained a single Bolshevik sympathiser it will have been very useful. We know, I am sorry to say, it is only too true, there are in this country to-day Bolshevik agents. They are sometimes difficult to trace. They are sometimes difficult to catch in anything which brings them within the meshes of the law. But they are here. To the best of our ability they are being carefully watched, and it will strengthen our hands if they know that there is no quarter, at any rate, in the representative House of Commons of England in which they have a sympathiser.

Mr. J. JONES: And there are no friends of Tsardom either.

Mr. SHORTT: I think it is possible my hon. Friend is perfectly right. I do not suppose there is anyone here who would wish to reconstitute in Russia the old system of government. One hon. Member has spoken of the refusal of our delegates to discuss matters with the Russian Government. I entirely contest the accuracy of that expression. There is no desire, I am sure, on the part of any Member of this House to refuse to discuss things with a Russian Government, but there is a distinct belief, and indeed a certainty, that there is to-day no Russian Government worthy of the name representative of Russia. We are entitled to say, and our delegates are entitled to say, "While we are perfectly willing, if you have a real
Government which represents Russia—a Government with stability, which can be called a Government, which is worthy of the name of a Government—we will discuss with them, we will negotiate with them; but when it comes to a mere gang of bloodthirsty ruffians who are terrorising the population of Russia, with these men we, the House of Commons of Great Britain and Ireland, will have no truck. That, as I understand it, is the meaning of this Motion.
I am quite sure that nobody would deny to Russia the absolute right of the Russian people to determine their own. form of government. Even if they went back to Tsardom, we could not claim any right to stop them. Equally if they became a communistical Government of the extremist kind, nobody, not even the most reactionary person in this country, would claim the right to prevent them. But we are entitled to say this: "If you choose in your country to set up a form of government which is a danger, not only to yourselves, but to the rest of the world, we will have nothing to do with you. We will protect ourselves from you." Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Lenin to-day represents the Government of Russia—we know he has emissaries in this country, and we know that he has others in other countries waiting to come here— we are entitled to say, "We do not care whether you are the Government of Russia or whether you are not; you are a danger to civilisation, and against your emissaries we will protect ourselves."
My own belief is—and I have such sources of information as are open to our police—that the Bolshevist emissaries in this country are finding very little support and very little encouragement. They are here. They are a danger. Where you get industrial unrest, where you get unemployment where you get any of those things which make men nervy and "jumpy," evil emissaries have a fertile ground. But I do not believe that any fertile ground to-day, in spite of any industrial unrest, exists for Bolshevism. I am equally satisfied, as far as I know, that the emissaries of Bolshevism are well in hand. Indeed. I may take the House into my confidence to the extent of saying that every single day that passes I sign a certain number of orders getting rid of some of them. While one has to be very careful indeed not to take some perfectly innocent alien who happens not to be a Britisher, and treat him with any form of injustice, when
once we are satisfied that an alien is a dangerous alien, then we must use the powers we possess to get rid of him.
I have been asked a number of questions about the visit of two Americans to Russia, about the report which they are said to have brought back, and about what is being done with regard to Lenin's proposals or negotiations. So far as I know, there is no reason to doubt that the two American gentlemen have been in Russia, and I understand they have returned. Whether they have brought actual definite proposals from Lenin or not I am not in a position to say. I am in a position to say, so far as the latest information I can get from Paris is concerned, no such proposals are before the British delegates. Whether they have been put before the Americans, of course, I could not be in a position to say, or the French, or the Italians, or any other person; but, according to the latest information, they are not before the British delegates. I have no reason to suppose for an instant that the declarations made by the Leader of the House the other day have been or are going to be departed from. Of course, when you only heard of the matter a few hours ago, you cannot get the definite information and knowledge that is required to make a definite statement. Therefore I cannot say anything really much more definite than that. I think I was asked, Do I suggest that representations might be put before the other delegates and not before those of this country?

Mr. T. WILSON: And considered by them.

Mr. SHORTT: No; I do not suggest anything of the kind. These gentlemen being Americans, may very probably have communicated to their countrymen things which they have not communicated to the delegates of other countries, but I have not made any suggestion of the sort. Indeed, I go further. I do not believe for a moment, from the information I have, that there is really any Lenin negotiation or suggestion brought to Paris at all. I believe the whole story is of German manufacture, for the purpose of making the people of other countries believe that the Bolshevist is really a peaceable, civilised, reasonable person. I am betraying no secret when I say our Secret Service know perfectly well that the Germans are spreading Bolshevism where they can. They know it is their only hope.
They know that where Bolshevism goes, anarchy reigns, and miserable weakness supervenes. I believe these stories are of German manufacture, for the purpose of making the people of other countries believe the Bolsheviks are really a perfectly peaceable, civilised regime.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: Does the right, hon. Gentleman mean to imply that, the statement that two American citizens, have come from Russia after interviewing Lenin, and have given an interview to certain delegates to the Peace Conference, are not true, and are of German manufacture?

Mr. SHORTT: I do not mean to suggest anything of the sort. I never said anything of the sort. I was not dealing with, the visit of the Americans to Russia. I said I had no reason to doubt that they had been there.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who sent them to Russia?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot. I said the stories which have reached the Press of America and come back to this country, that Lenin was ready to negotiate on reasonable terms, were really of German manufacture, and that Lenin to-day is no more willing to negotiate on any kind of reasonable basis, and is no more fit to negotiate with, than he was before. As I have said, it is very difficult to answer when you are dealing with questions which cans only be answered with definite knowledge, and I am sure that the House will appreciate that it would be very dangerous for me to repeat something said over the telephone between Paris and London, which might not be quite accurate, and which might give a wrong impression. Therefore, I do not, and I am sure that the House will not press me to do so, give the result of a telephonic message which might give an inaccurate impression; but I can say that there have been no such proposals as have been suggested, nor, indeed, have there been any proposals from Lenin before our delegates. I can at least promise to do this—to convey to the Prime Minister the undoubted fact that the unanimous feeling of this House was in favour of this Resolution. I think that that is perfectly clear. In doing that I am not suggesting for an instant that the Prime Minister is weakening, or that the Prime Minister has sent out any S.O.S. This is a spon-
taneous motion of a body of Members without any consultation or connection of any kind with the Government. The House of Commons has responded to it, and I shall certainly report to the Prime Minister what the feeling of the House of Commons has been. I cannot to-night promise that the Prime Minister himself will be here before Tuesday, but either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House will be here before the House adjourns, when possibly there may be some chance of getting some more definite information than it is possible for me to give to the House. But this I will say, that this has been a useful and valuable Debate and has made clear to the whole world what it the opinion of the British House of Commons.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that the Home Secretary, in his most satisfactory speech, has laid down this principle, speaking for the Government, that they do not intend to negotiate with certain people whom he described as bloodthirsty ruffians, which we all agree they are, who are now posing as the Government of Russia. I do not think that we could have had a more satisfactory assurance from the Government, and I merely rise to ask whether that is the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given?

Mr. SHORTT: What I have said was, and I repeat it, that I have no reason to suppose that what the Leader of the House said the other day will be departed from in any way whatever.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is not quite as strong as I thought it was. I wanted to be quite certain as to what it was that the Government have told us. I do not want to disturb the excellent speech which the right hon. Gentleman has given us, but I am rather sorry that he has a little bit qualified it towards the end, because I want to be quite certain where we are; and if he had sat down and not made it quite clear that the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons is what I have just set forth, then it might be said that the House had accepted that statement of the right hon. Gentleman which he might have whittled down. Now, as I understand the unanimous opinion of the House, is that we ought not in any circumstances to have any negotiations with the gentlemen—with the men—whom the right hon. Gentleman has described as bloodthirsty ruffians, and that from that we will not depart.

Mr. JOHN JONES: I intervene in this Debate because during the part of the discussion which I had the first opportunity of listening to it seemed as though those who are responsible for the Resolution before the House were anxious to score a political victory against those whom they assumed to be their opponents. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] If there are opponents of Bolshevism in this country I claim to be amongst them, because before the War, and during the War, those of us who sit on these benches have had to face the music in every trade union branch and every Socialist organisation with which we happen to be associated. I could have voted for a Resolution of a positive character denoting the policy that the Government of this country should assume in connection with the Russian embroglio, but what is the proposition before the House? It is purely a negative that the Government must not do certain things, but there is no suggestion as to what the Government of this country should do. If you are going to interfere in the internal affairs of another country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" and "Yes!"]—I venture to suggest gentlemen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] —hon. Members at least, that when we are dealing with Russia we are not dealing with Ireland, and the same arguments that apply to the reign of Lenin and Trotsky by the rule of the bullet and the bayonet, also apply in other connections. And some hon. Members of this House, who the other evening applauded vigorously the declaration of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that 40,000 troops were necessary to keep 4,000,000 people in subjection on the other side of St. George's Channel—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—surely I am entitled at least to assume that those who do not believe in government by bullets ought to be consistent. Lenin and Trotsky—we know them. I learned all I know of Russia from associates of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, and all I know about Russia, is that it is a place I do not want to go to. So far as we are concerned, we have heard nothing from our friends upon the other side which gives us any reason to hope that they have any ideas about Russia, except that they are very anxious to get into it and do not know the way to get out of it. As far as this Resolution is concerned, those of us who belong to the Labour party are anxious to see peace as soon as possible. [An HON. MEMBER:
"With honour!"] You have sent plenipotentiaries to Paris and now you want to tie their hands behind their backs. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] The practical effect of the proposition to-night is this, that they must not do certain things, but you may be compelled by necessity within a fortnight's time to accept the very things which to-night you say you will not. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no," and "Never."] Not again my dear friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "Pulpit" and "Order."] I should have imagined when I addressed you as friends that I was not talking to enemies. [An HON. MEMBER: "Address the Chair."] Mr. Speaker, Sir. I assume that hon. Members opposite want peace. I also assume that some hon. Members opposite want pieces. You will have peace when you know how to get it. Why do you not propose a resolution that, in the event of the restoration of the Constituent Assembly, you are prepared to negotiate with the representatives of the Russian people? Why do you not declare a policy? Are you going to leave that policy to be settled by the gentlemen who are representing us in Paris, or are you going to say here, as Members of the House of Commons, that you have a policy of your own and not a mere policy of negation? You want indemnities; you want Russia to be left open to the possibilities of international complications of even a graver character than already exist. The spread of Bolshevism in Europe depends upon the spread of starvation in Europe. Hon. Members of this House are supporting the policy of starvation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" and "Who?"]—

Brigadier-General PAGE-CROFT: On a point of Order. Earlier in the Debate, the Mover of this Resolution was called to order because he discussed one or two questions aside from this Resolution. I humbly venture to submit that the hon. Gentleman's speech also is following that example.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that has not occurred to me yet.

Mr. JONES: I venture to suggest that Bolshevism is closely allied to starvation; that Lenin and Trotsky have played upon the starvation that exists in Eastern and Central Europe and, as a consequence of the growth of that starvation, they have found very fruitful ground. The best way in which we can defeat Bolshevism is to
provide for the people of Eastern and Central Europe means whereby they can provide for the starving populations in those great countries. Have we proposed anything up to now that will improve the situation? Bolshevism in this country! We know where that Bolshevism exists; we know the people who are responsible for it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who are they?"] If you are so clever you ought to have discovered them: I am no secret service agent, and I have no responsibility for what may happen. [An HON. MEMBER: "A duty."] The duty that I have is to say that, in so far as hon. Members of this House of Commons simply cry all the time for something which they cannot have; in so far as they cry out for their pound of flesh, like so many Shy-locks, they will not get peace in Europe, and Bolshevism will necessarily spread as a result of the continuance of the present arrangements. Therefore, much as we on these benches would like to see Bolshevism destroyed, it is not going to be destroyed by the kind of speeches which we have heard this evening. It can only be destroyed by the restoration of organised and orderly government in Europe. Therefore, instead of demanding the last limit of human endurance from the peoples whom we have conquered, we ought to be prepared to enter into reasonable arrangements of peace and to say to those who were our enemies, just a few months ago that, under proper conditions, peace can be restored. Then you would find that Bolshevism would be reduced in proportion as peace was made more possible. We, on these benches, some of us, have got into trouble inside the Labour movement, because we tried to be patriotic during the War, and you know it. Some of you would not have been sitting on those benches if it had not been for the support of the biggest reactionaries in this country. Some hon. Members know that inside the Labour movement there has been a strong pacifist element. That pacifist element is trading to-day upon the fact that peace does not seem to be very near at hand. Dissatisfaction has been created because of the impossible demands that are being made. Therefore, while we want, so far as this Resolution is concerned, not to negotiate with the men whose hands are red with the blood of innocent men, women and children, and while we have no desire to recognise those who have killed their fellow Socialists as being responsible
governments, we do want to say that the Government of this country and the Governments of all the Allied countries have a very great responsibility to themselves and to the rest of the world in making peace as soon as possible on democratic lines. Because we do not agree with everything hon. Members opposite say, let it not be said that we have sympathy with anarchy or anything of the kind. I want to repudiate any suggestion that we in the Labour movement are anxious to see this country kept apart from peaceful and democratic development. The longer you delay a satisfactory and democratic peace the more sneers we have at America; the more suggestions there are that President Wilson is out for pieces and not for peace; the more sneers we have against that great country which came into the War to free herself from the possibility of militarism in the future, the more we are helping to prepare the hell's broth of the future. We shall have America becoming a great military Power, and we shall have Eastern Europe allying itself with the Bolshevists. Because I have learned a good lesson at the feet of some hon. Members who have identified themselves with the Russian democratic movement in days gone by, I do not want to aid those who would sooner see Czardom on the throne again than see the Russians capable of managing their own affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names!"] Names have been mentioned of Gentlemen who have declared themselves in favour of the restoration of the Monarchy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names!"] Admiral Kolchak is one. He declared publicly that he was in favour of the restoration of Monarchical Government in Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members may not agree with me, and my knowledge of Russia may not be as extensive as theirs, but I am glad to say that my ignorance is as profound, at least. What they know would fill a book, but what they do not know would fill a library. We know the people who are associating themselves with certain movements connected with Russia. They are people who are anxious to get their pound of flesh, and because we know that we have suspicions of the people who are to-day pretending to be the friends of peace. I knew my opinions would be unpopular. That is the reason why I got up to express them. We say that Russia has a great future, and when you try to ostracise, as you are trying to do, and to
make the Russian Bolshevik Government believe that they have the sympathy of a large proportion of the people in their own country, and that they also may have sympathy in other countries, you are opening up greater possibilities of warfare in the future than we have had in the past. It is because we do not want to see the spread of disorder and anarchy that we on these benches declare ourselves in favour of immediate peace, democratically considered, without trying to force Russia into a position of absolute impossibilism.

Mr. SEXTON: It is with very great hesitancy indeed that I venture to intervene in this Debate, but I do want to put myself right, and I am speaking purely for myself. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), I have had to keep my own corner in the trade union movement from the beginning of the War until now, and, like him, I have had to meet with opposition. I have not changed my opinion even to-day. My position here—and I speak for myself—is sincerely to adopt the principle embodied in the Resolution moved to-night. I am not going to be a party, no matter what the conditions may be, to negotiating with men whose record and whose tracks are red with blood. I do not want to detain the House any longer, but that is my position as an individual, and I am speaking purely for myself.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: I ask the leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DEMOBILISATION.

Colonel BURN: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the compassionate grounds on which demobilisation can be granted should be more clearly denned, and that special machinery should be set up for dealing expeditiously with such cases.
I make no apology for bringing this Motion before the House, because I think there is no subject of greater interest to the people generally than this question of demobilisation on compassionate grounds, and I feel certain that every Member of this House has been inundated with correspondence on this subject. I consider myself fortunate in having drawn first place in the ballot to bring forward this Motion, and I say it is of great importance, because there are doubtless many cases of demobilisa-
tion that ought to be considered on compassionate grounds. I would instance the case of a man who has answered his country's call and who leaves his home, and probably his wife and three or four young children, and we must always remember the possibility of those young children not being able to fend for themselves and also the possibility of one or more suffering from the illnesses to which children are subject. Then, again, we have the case of the man serving, who was formerly really the one who provided the wherewithal for his aged parents. Take a father and mother, old and unable to work, who are entirely dependent on their son's earnings. Then, again, we have the man who before the War was just beginning to feel himself on his legs as far as his business was concerned. His clientèle was daily increasing, and he readily answered the call to the Colours, whether it was of his own volition, whether it was under the Derby scheme, or whether it was under the Military Service Acts. At any rate, he had to leave his business, and his wife, to the best of her ability, kept the business going so far as she was able. But we must remember that, well as the women of this country have answered the call, well as they have done the work that has been allotted to them during the War, we know still that their task, their metier, in life is to take care of their families and of the upbringing of their children.
I claim that never was there a time when it was more necessary that those children should have a mother's care and be brought up as they should be, because I think we all recognise, and the Government realises, that the future of our country lies with the coming generation. The wife who tries to keep the home-fires burning so far as the business is concerned, undoubtedly does her best, but everyone knows there are certain lines of business in which a man's initiative is absolutely necessary—for instance, the purchasing of goods and material. As I say, the wife who has to manage the business has to leave the care of her children to other people, and in my belief that care cannot be given by anyone but the mother in the home. Evidence of that is to be found in the Housing Bill which is to provide accommodation for the people in order that the children may be brought up fit to take their place as strong and efficient citizens of the State. I take this the earliest opportunity
of bringing up this important matter for discussion in the House, and I do this in no spirit of carping criticism at the action or inaction of the Government in this matter, for I thoroughly realise the difficulties with which they have to contend, and it is not my purpose to put obstacles in their way, or to make it more difficult for them to find the men necessary to fill up the gaps that occur in order to keep up our forces according to the necessities of our military requirements. But the question of release on compassionate grounds is one that should receive sympathetic attention, and should be considered absolutely apart from and irrespective of the date of enlistment of a soldier. Cases of a heart-rending nature are with difficulty separated from those cases. Grave discontent has been and is being caused over this Instruction of the Army Council. Any serving soldier, with no record of the date of his enlistment, should have his case considered on compassionate grounds. The official instruction as to what constitutes compassionate grounds is totally inadequate. Greater elasticity should be given to the authorities concerned, for them to decide, apart from Army Council Instructions, as to what constitutes compassionate grounds. There are many cases that are not covered by that instruction. Those can be cited. In view of the Armistice take one example, the case of the widow who is dependent upon her only son. This should certainly be considered on compassionate grounds. There is the case of the unfaithful wife, and unfortunately during this War more than one of these cases has occurred, where the children can be proved to have been neglected, that certainly is a case for the man to be treated as a compassionate case and allowed release from the Army. Further, apart from infidelity, if neglect of the children can be proved, that must be treated as a compassionate case.
In order to allay the feeling of unrest in all these hard cases commanding officers should be allowed to have posters drawn up, which may be seen by the men, so that they will know exactly where they start, and so that they can learn the procedure to be adopted by them in case they come within these grounds. They can see if they are eligible for demobilisation. Serving soldiers do not as a rule read the newspapers very carefully for they have many other things to do. Those posters should
certainly be put up in every town or village where troops are quartered so that the men may read and see for themselves if they come within the provisions. At any rate, every serving soldier should realise, or should be made to realise, that the old order of things, the wide gulf that separated the noncommissioned officer and the man from the his commanding officer can no longer exist with the citizen and largely Conscript Army. Any and every man should be allowed or have permission to go before his commanding officer and state his case. I believe considerable delay has existed at the headquarters of regiments abroad. Instructions should be given to the commanding officers that they must look into every case, and act on it exclusively from the proper point of view. They must weigh the pros and cons, and not consider themselves in their wish to retain certain men; they must make up their minds speedily if the man is eligible for demobilisation, and that Instruction should at once be telegraphed home and proceedings carried through there.

It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

CRIMINAL INJUEIES (IRELAND) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding on Second Reading resumed.

Mr. A. W. SAMUELS (indistinctly heard): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The object of this Bill is to give compensation for criminal injuries in Ireland. As far back as 1836 provision was made for the compensation of officers and men of the police and other persons who, in the discharge of their duty, had been injured on account of their exertions in bringing persons to justice. Other similar Acts have been passed since that date. For a considerable number of years the interpretation of these Acts had a wider character and embraced all cases of murder or maiming where the murder had arisen out of the activities of certain members of the police force or the magistracy. In recent circumstances it has become absolutely imperative that the members of the Police force, the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and all the military and the magistracy who are assisting in the administration of law in Ireland should be
protected from the peril of assassination which it has almost become impossible to describe.
I shall tell the House what that terror is. I shall pass away entirely from the tragic incident of the rebellion of 1916 and come down to much more recent years, when a propaganda was started by a body called the Irish Volunteers, who represented themselves as the Army of Ireland. In 1918 a newspaper was published. It is a document most widely circulated in Ireland, printed secretly, and circulated surreptitiously, but which every fortnight goes through the country in thousands and thousands. This document is published as the official organ of the Irish Volunteers. It starts with these representations to the public:
For the first time since Easter week, 1916, the Irish Volunteers again possess an official organ, which will follow the usual traditions and attempt to keep to the ideals cherished by the men who founded Ireland's national army in the time of the rebellion. There is a somewhat changed situation in Ireland to-day, and the presence in our ranks of great numbers of new recruits render it necessary to restate some of the basic principles.
The Members of the House are aware that the idea of the extreme party in Ireland is to found an Irish Republic. This document is published and printed surreptitiously and secretly circulated in thousands throughout the country. It is an organ of assassination and not merely an organ of insurrection. Here are some of its principles. I will pass over a large number and come down to the present year. In February, 1919, this was being circulated in Ireland, and unquestionably had a great effect among the unfortunately misled youth of the country, who have become the prey of this particular propaganda of the extremists.
It is the will of Ireland, expressed by her responsible Government, that the state of war between this country and England should be perpetuated until the foreign garrison have evacuated our country. It will be the duty of the Volunteers, acting in accordance with the will of our Government and the wishes of the Irish people, to secure the continuance of that state of war by every means at our disposal and in the most vigorous way practicable. Every Volunteer must be prepared for more drastic action and more strenuous activities than ever before since Easter, 1916.
The Government claims the same powers and authority—that is the Government instituted by the Sinn Feiners—as any other lawfully constituted Government, and the British soldiers, who have per-
formed such splendid services in Ireland, are to be treated exactly as the soldiers of an invading army.
England must be given the choice between evacuating this country and holding it by a foreign garrison… The agents of England in this country must be made to realise that their occupation is not a healthy one. All those engaged in carrying on English administration in this country must be made to realise that it is not safe for them to carry it on in opposition to the Irish Republican Government and the wishes of the country. In particular, any policeman, judge, warder, or official, from the British Lord-Lieutenant downwards, must be made to understand that it is not wise for him to distinguish himself by undue zeal in the service of England in his opposition to the Irish Republic.
Any number of surreptitious documents of this character are circulated all through the country, and it is with the object of protecting from assassination, which has occurred in cases over and over again in Ireland, magistrates, police, and other persons who are carrying out the law, that we ask you to give us the powers that are inserted in this Bill and which were contained in the Act of 1882 which was allowed to drop. Speaking with a very intimate knowledge of the terrible position of the country, I can tell hon. Members that it is essential, in the opinion of the Irish Government, that it should be given these powers, the effect of which will be that the country and the district which have screened the perpetrators of these crimes, many of which are fresh in the recollections of hon. Members, should pay compensation to the widows and
orphans of the men who have been assassinated as the result of this dastardly propaganda while carrying out their duties in a most splendid manner with a courage unexampled. The Dublin Metropolitan Police, the Royal Irish Constabulary, and soldiers stationed in Ireland have acted with great discretion, wonderful temper, and the splendid courage which have always marked their conduct

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Resolved,
That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Pratt.]

Bill considered in Committee.

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; Committee counted, and forty Members being found present—

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

WAR CHARITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Adjourned at Seventeen minutes after Eleven o'clock.